3 No . ............. .................. Thou Art a Minister of "THE WORD" .. .......... . ............ ............ .................. ......... ...... ..... ...... MIND THY BUSINESS I cr-p ( - . . j.\N EXPOSITIO OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICIJES AN EXPOSIrrION OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES HISTORICAIJ AXD DOCTRINAL BY ED\' ARD H.A.ROLD BRO" KE, D.D., D.C.L. FORl\IERLY LORD BISHOP OF WIXCHESTER, AKD PRELATE OF THE ORDER OF THE GARTER THE FOURTEENTH EDITION LONDON LONG1\IANS, GREEN, AND CO. AND KE\V YORK: 15 EAST 16 th STREET 1894  II r vh ts 7'esen.'ed Pritlted by BALLA TYr\E, HA!\SON & Co. At the Ballantyne Press, Edinburgh PREFACE TO THE ELE'7"EKTH EDITIOK THE eminent Bishop to ,, hom I dedicated the first ten Editions of this book, and in whose Diocese I ,vas " orking ,, hen I began to write it, has lately passed R\Vay from his earthly labours into the ,vorld of spirits. It may need some apology that in an age of un- paralleled change in opinion, I should send out another Edition, almost unaltered in language and thought from the first Edition, no,,"" a quarter of a century old. I have made no change of importance, for t,vo reasons. (1) The book has been accepted and used by almost all the Anglican Bishops, colleges, and universities, in Great Britain, Ireland, the Colonies, and America. I should hardly feel justified in modifying to any serious extent arguments and opinions, \vhich others have thus made their o\vn. (2) But, moreoyer, not\vithstanding the constant controyersies in \yhich \ve have been involved. my own views remain unchanged. I do not mean, that I never think, and that no new thoughts ever present themselves. But I have seen no reason to depart from Vlll PREFACE TO THE ELEVE TH EDITlüX. the ancient, scrÌ ptural, Catholic faith of the English Church. I have seen no ground for accepting mediæval accretions, nor for doubting the soundness of primitive belief. From every quarter of the sky storms have beaten on the Church; and their fury has only proved that. she is founded on a Rock. F ARXHAM CAISTLE, Jew:ua-ry 25. 1878. , IN'l l ROD U 0 r ION. T HE lleformation ,vas not the \vork, either of a year, or of a generation. Its foundation was laid, both in the good and in the evil qualities of our nature. Love of truth, reverence for sacred things, a sense of personal responsibility, a desire for the possession of full spiritual privileges, co-operated with the pride of human reason, the natural impatience of restraint, and the envy and hatred inspired alnong the nobles by a rich and po,verful hierarchy, to make the ,vorld weary of the l)apal domination, and desirous of reform in things spiritual and ecclesiastical. Wickliffe in England, and H uss and J erOlne of Prague in Gernlany, had long ago given utterance to a feeling, which lay deep in the hearts, and spread wide among the ranks, of thinking men. It ,vas said of 'Vickliffe, that half of the secular priests in England agreed with him: and his followers long gaye serious trouble both to Church and State. On the Continent, the Bohe- 11lian Church was rent by faction; and even open war ,vas the result of an obstinate denial of the Cup in the Lord's Supper to the lay members of Christ's Church. The two great Councils of Constance (A.D. 141 5) and Easle (A.D. 143 I) were the results of the general call for a reformation of abuses; and they left them ,vhere they ,ver , or aggravated and strengthened them. But there was a leaven, which could not be prevented from ,vorking. The revival of letters and the art of printing taught men how to think, and how to communicate their thoughts. :1Ien ,vhose character was almost purely literary contributed not a little to pull down the system, which threatened to stifle learning by confounding it with heresy. Amongst these, on every account the most important and influential ,vas Erasmus. It is thought. by many, that his Biblical criticism and his learned ,vit did more to rouse men to reform, than the honest but headlong zeal of Luther. At least, if there had been no Erasmus to precede him, B {) ...J IXTRODUCTIOX. Luther.s voice, if it could not have been stilled, n1Ìght soon have been stifled. lIe might not llave found both learning and power zealous to protect him, so that he could defy and prove superior to the allied forces of the En1peror and the Pope. But Erasnlus wa hin1self alarmed at the spirit he had raised. He had been zealous for reformation; but he dreaded destruction. And he ,vas the type of many, thought to be n10re in earnest than himself. On both sides of the great controversy, \V hich soon divided Europe into t\VO hostile conul1unities, w.ere many ,vho wished to have abuses eradicated, but ,vho feared to see the fabric of ages shaken to its centre. 80111e, like Erasmus, remained in communion with Itome; others, like 3Ielancthon, joined the Ileformation. The distance in point of sentiment between the more moderate men, thus by force of circun1stances arrayed in opposition to each other, was probably but very small. But in the ranks of both parties there ,vere many of a more impetuous and less c0l11pro- mising spirit; and, as the voice of a cOlnn1unity is generally ex- pressed in the tones of its loudest speakers, \ve are apt to look un all the reformers as actuated by a violent animosity to all that ,vas Roman, and on 'the adherents of Rome as unrelentingly bent to destroy and extern1Ínate all that was reforming. ",Vhile this state of things ,vas pending, and whilst the spirit of inquiry was at least as much alive in England as on the Continent, Henry VIII. ,vas drawn into a difference w.ith the Papal see on the subject of his divorce \vith Catherine of Arragon. The merits of the question Inay be debated elsewhere. This much alone we may observe, that Henry, if he acted froIn principle, not from passion, Il1ight have suffered his scruples to weigh with him, 'v hen his wife ,vas young and well-fayoured, not \vhen she had grown old and care-worn; when she brought hiu1 a rich dowry, not when he had absorbed and spent it; when he had hopes of a lllale heir to his throne, not when those hopes had been disappointed, the Lady 1ary being the sole issue of his alliance. But, whatever the moving cause, he ,vas in hostility to the see of Rome; and his only chance of making head against it ,vas to call up and gh e strength to the spirit of Reformation. Cranmer had been introduced to him by some casual observa- tions on the best ,vay of settling the question of the divorce; and Crannler from that time forth Henry steadily favoured and pro- tected. In 1533, the king threw off the suprelnacy of the Bishop of R01l1e, and declared the independence of his kingdom and of its ,Church. But it has been said, that he rejected the Pope, .not the IXTROD GCTIOX. 3 Papacy. The Church was to be independent of Rou1e; but not independent absolutely. For a spiritual, he substituted a telnporal head; and ,vished to confer on that temporal head-himself-aU the ecclesiastical authority, which had been enjoyed by the spiritual. Cranmer was no\v Archbishop of Canterbury. His character has been differently described by those \vho have taken their views of it from different sides of the question. His greatest enemies can scarcely deny him the virtues of mildness, moderation, and patience, nor the praise of learning and candanr.! His greatest admirers can hardly affirlll that he \vas free from weakness and timidity, and a too ready compliance with the \vhims and wishes of those in power. But he had a hard post to fill. Henry had thrown off the power of the Pope, and so had thrown hitnself into the party of the reformers; but he had no nlind to throw off all the errors of Popery, and to go all lengths with the Reformation. Cranuler had often to steer his course warily, lest his bark should make shipwreck altogether; and over zeal for his cause might provoke the hostility of one whose \vord was la\' and whose \vill \vouid brook no restraint from an archbishop, when it had dethroned a Pope. During IIenry's reign several documents ,vere put forth varying in their COIn plexioll, according as Cranmer had more or less influence 'vith him. The Six Articles nearly swamped the Refornlation, and endangered even the Archbishop. rfhe BishoJJs' Book, or the Institution of a Christian JIan, was a confession of faith set forth when Cranmer and Ridley were in the ascendant. But it was succeeded by the Iíin:/s Book, the Necessary Doct1rine, \vhich was the ICillg'3 nlodification of the Bishops' Book, in \vhich Gardiner hacl greater influence, and \vhich restored some of those doctrines of the Roman communion, which the Bishops' Book had discarded. 2 1 His first reforming successor in thp. archiepiscopal see has thus described him: Ut theologiam a barbarie vindicaret, ad- jecit literas Græcas et Hebræas ; qua rum sane post 8usceptum doctoratus gradum constat eum perstudiosum fuisse. Quibus perceptis antiquissimos tam Græcos quam Latinos patres evolvit: concilia omnia et antiquitatem ad ipsa Apostolorum tem- pora investigavit; theologiam totam, de- tracta illa quam sophis1ïæ obduxerunt vitiata cute, ad vivum resecavit: quam tamen non doctrina magis quam moribus et yita express it. 1\1ira enim temperantia, miraanimilcnitate atqueplacabilitate fuit; ut nullainjuriaaut contumelia ad iramaut vindictam proyocari posset; inimicissi- mosqne, quorum vim ac potentiam etsi despexit ac leviter tulit, ab offensione tam en ad inimicitias deponendas atque gratiam ineundamsæpe humauitateduxit. Eam præterea cOllstantiam, gravitatem-ac moderationem præ se tulit, ut in omni varietate rebusque, sive secundis, sive adversis, nunquam turbari animum ex fronte vultuque colligeres.-::\1att. Parker, De A ntiq. Britann. Eccles. p. 496. Lond. 17 2 9. 2 See Cardwell's SY'ltodalia, p. 34, Note. B 2 4 INTllODUCTIOX. Crannler 'was hÏ1nself not as yet fully settled in his views. lIe had early split with the Papacy, and convinced hiIl1self of the need of reformation, and of the general defection froln the faith of the Scriptures and the primitive Ohurch. But he was some tiu1e before he gave up the doctrine of Trausu bstalltiation and other opinions in \vhich he had been educated. l The bishops and clergy in general were far less disposed to reformation, than the king or the archbishop. It was rather by an exercise of regal preroga- tive than by the force of persuasion, that changes ,vere effected, even to the extent ,vhich took place in Henry's reign. It was also not nnlch to the taste of the clergy that they should be forced to pay the same obedience to a ten1poral, ,vhich they had hitherto paid to a spiritual head: especially ,vhen Henry seelned to claiIn, and Oranuler, at least for a time, to sa.nction spiritual obedience to such a temporal authority; and Inost of all when Henry had given nlarked indications, that, instead of making lighter the yoke which the Pope had put upon theIn, his little finger would be thicker than the Pope's loins. But neither clergy nor people were allowed to speak louder than the king chose to suffer. Convocation, both in this reign and the next, had little \veight, and was not often consulted. HO\\Tever, in Henry's reign many important steps \vere taken. rrbe Ohurch \vas declared independent of Rome. The Bible was translated into English. So also were many portions of the Church Service. Negotiations were opened- \vith the German Reformers, especial1y with J\Ielancthon, ,vhonl Henry and Cranmer besought in vain to conle over and help them. 2 And in I 538, in consequence of conferences between Oranmer and the German divines, a body of thirteen articles was drawn up, in great measure agreeing \vith the Confession of Augsburg. 3 On the accession of Edward \'1., who was himself a zealous partisan of the Reformation, greatpr changes were speedily made. In 1547 the first book of Homilies was put forth. In 154 8 'The Archbishop of Canterbury \vith other learned and discreet bishops 1 Ridley was converted from a belief in Transubstantiation to believe in the Spiritual Prespnce by reading Ratramn's Book, and ht:: was the means of bringing- ()\'er CranllJér, who in time brought Lati. mer to the same conviction. See Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 192. The date assigned to RidleJ's conversion is 1545. See also Soames' lUst. of Reformation, V 01. III. ch. lIe p. 17. 2 J\Ielancthon seems to have known I-Ienry's character t()O well to wish to become his counsellor. See Laurence, Bampton Lecfw.cs, p. 198, Third Edition, London, 1838; and Dr. Cardwell's Pre- face to the Two Lit'i.lrgics of Kin!} Ed-l{"U}'d VI. Oxf. 1838, p. iv. Note 6. 3 See Cranmer's Jrork$, by J enkyns, Vol. IV. p. 273. IXTRODUCTIOX. 5 and diyines ' were appointed' by the king to draw an order of divine worship, having respect to the pure religion of Christ taught in the Scripture, and to the practice of the prinlitive Church.' This commission is said to have consisted of Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury; I)ay, Bishop of Chichester; Goodrich, Bishop of Ely; Skip, Bishop of Hereford; Holbeacb, of Lincoln; Ridley, of Rochester; Thirlby, of Westminster; l\lay, Dean of St. Paul's; Taylor, Dean of Lincoln; Haines, Dean of Exeter; Robertson, t\.rchdeacon of Leicester; Redlnayne, l\Iaster of Trinity College, Ca.mbridge; Cox, almoner to the king, and Dean of vVestminster and Christ Church. l These commissioners, or a portion of them,2 dre\v np the First Service Book of Edward VI., which was approved by Convocation, and confirmed by both Houses of Parliament. rrhe principal sources fronl which it ,vas derived were the ancient offices of the Church of England, and \vith them very probably the Liturgy drawn up by 11elancthon and Bucer, at the request of Herman, Arch bishop of Cologne, for the use of his diocese, ,vhich had been principally derived from the ancient liturgy of N uremberg. 3 The same year, Cranmer translated n Catechism written by Justus Jonas, which he put forth with his o\vn authority; and which is cOllilllonly called Cranmer's Catechisnl. rrhe Calvinistic refornlers of the continent 11lade many objections to the Liturgy as drawn up in 1548: and many English divines entertained similar scruples. It is probable that the clergy at large \vere not desirous of further reformation; but the king and the arch bishop were both anxious for a revision, which should do a,vay with any appearance of giving sanction to Romish superstitions. Accord- ingly an order \vas given to prepare a new Service Book. The king and his council were n10st zealous in favour of the change, and it is even said that the king declared, in a spirit like his father's, that if the bishops would make the desired change, he ,vonld interpose his o\vn supreme authority to enforce its acceptance. 1 See Strype's Cranmer, p. 193. Ri(l- ley's Life of Ridley, p. 221. Collyer's Reel. Rist. Vol. II: p. 252, &c. Downe's LÜ'es of the Compiler."! of tlte Liturgy, pre- fixed to Sparrow's Rat1.onale. Soames' JIist. Ref. VoL III. p. 253. The first Service Book was attributed by his con- temporary Bale to Cranmer. On Cran- mt>r's approbation of it, see Jenkyns' Cranmer, VoL I. pp. LIII., LIV. - 2 Soames seemed satisfied, that the parties actually engaged were Cranmer, Ridley, Goodrich, Holbeach, l\Iay, Taylor, . Jlaynes, and Cox. 'If,' he say , 'it be true that Dr. Redmayn did not cordially approve the new Liturgy, that circum- stance is to be regretted, for the age could boast of fewmen more erudite and honest.' VoJ. III. p. 256. This witness is true. 3 See Cardwell's Preface to tlle T'll'O Liturgics of Edwa1'd VI., p. XIII., and the authorities there referred to. G INTRODUCTION. '1'he new Service Book \vas put forth in 1552, and, ,vith few exceptions, although these few are very important, it is the same as that we now possess under the name of the Book of Common Prayer. The convocation ,vas not permitted to pass its judglnent on it, because it would, in all probability, have thrown all possible diffi- culties in the way of its publication. It came forth \vith the authority of Parliament; though the Act, which enjoined its acceptance, declared tbat the objections to the forIner book were rather curious than reasonable. l '1'he same year saw the publication of the forty-t,vo ' Articles of Religion.' They \vere framed by the archbishop at the king's command, and committed to certain bishops to be inspected and approved by them. They were then returned to the archbishop and anlended by hin1; he then sent thenl to Sir ,Villianl Cecil and Sir John Cheke, who agreed that the arch bishop should offer thenl to the king; ,vhich accordingly he diel. They ,ycre then communicated to some other divines, and returned once more to the archbishop. The archbishop made his last remarks upon then1, and so returned them again in three days to the council, beseeching them to prevail with the king to give authority to the bishops, to cause their respective clergy to subscribe them. 2 It has been doubted whether these articles thus drawn up were ever sanctioned by convocation. Dr. Card well, in his Synodalia, has given good reason to think, that they received full syn9dica1 authority. It has been shown by Archbishop Laurence:3 and others, that the Lutheran Confessions of Faith, especially the Confession of 1 Strypt::'s Cranmer, pp. 210,266, 28 9. Ridley's L re of Ridley, p. 333. Collyer's Heel. Hisl. II. 3c9. Soames, III. ch. VI. p. 592. 'The prelates themselves appear to }ul,\'e considered the existing Liturgy as jo.;ufficiently unexceptionable, for in the Act authorizing the new one, it was declarp-d t hat the former book contained nothing hut what was agreeable to the word of ( ()d, and the primiti\'e Church; and that Imch ùoubts as had been raised in the use :md. exercise thereof, proceeded rather from the curiosity of the ministers and mistakers than o(any other worthy cause.' SoanJes, III. p. 595. 2 \Vake's StrIte of the Chm'c/i, &c., p. 599: quoted by Cardwell, Synodalia, Vol. I. p. 3. See a.l o Jenkyns' Cranmer, Vol. I. p. 357. It is asserted by Strype in his Lift ùf Cranmer, anù rppeated by Gloucester Ridley, that of these Articles, 'the Archbishop was the penner, or at le8 t the great director, with the assistance, as is very probable, of Bishop Ridley.' Ridley's Life, p. 343. Ir. Soames says, 'Of the Articles now framed Abp. Cranmer must be considered as the sole compiler. . . . It eemB likely that he consulted his friend Ridley, and that he obtained from him many notes. It is however certain. that the Bishop of London was not actuallv concern d in preparing the Articles, as Cranmer, when t:'xamined at Oxford, took upon himst:')f the whole responsibility of that work:' fill' which he quotes :Foxe, 17 0 4. Soames' His'. Ref. Ill. p. 648. 3 Bampton Lectures, passim; espe- I cbll,y p. 230. IXTRODCCTIOX. 7 AuO'sburO' were the chief sources to which Cranmer \vas indebted o 0' for the Articles of I 552. He did not servilely follo\v, but yet Inade copious use of them. The chief assistant to Cranmer, both in this labour and in the translations and revisions of the Liturgy, was unquestionably his great friend and counsellor, Ridley. It is ,veIl known, that he had material influence in inducing the archbishop to renounce the doctrine of Transubstantiation and to embrace that of the Spiritual l resence : 1 and the Romanist party of the day asserted, that Cranmer derived all his learning from Ridley. However untrue this may be, it is pretty certain, that they always acted in concert. In the drawing up of the First Service Book, Ridley was one of the commissioners; and no doubt, next to Cranmer, had a principal hand in compiling and afterwards revising it. S011]e of the com- missioners protested against the passing the Act for authorizing the first book, inasmuch as it went beyond their views of liturgical reform. But Ridley showed the greatest zeal to induce conformity both to it, and to the Second Service Book, which was far more extensively reformed. And indeed throughout, Cranmer and he appear to have ,valked in the sanle course, and acted on the sanle principles. It is of consequence to remenl bel' these facts. For, if Cranmer and TIidley \vere the chief compilers both of the Prayer Book and of the Articles; although the Church is in no degree bound by their private opinions, yet, when there is a difficulty in understanding a clause either in the Articles or the Liturgy, ,vhich are the two standards of authority as regards the doctrines of the English Church, it cannot but be desirable to elucidate such dif- ficulties by appealing to the writings, and otherv,Tise expressed opinions of these two reformers. It is true, both Liturgy and oLt\.rticles have been altered since their time. Yet by far the larger portion of both remains just as they left them. The convocation appears to have made little alteration in the Articles, and none in the Liturgy, in Edward's reign; for the Second Service Book ,vas not submitted to it, and it has been even doubted whether the Articles were passed by it. The event, which seemed to crush the l eformation in the bud, in fact gave it life. N ei ther clergy nor people appear to have been very hearty in its cause, when it canle cOIDlnended to them by the tyranny of Henry, or even by the somewhat arbitrary 1 Ridley's life (If Ridley, p. 162, referred to above. 8 I TRODUCTION. authority of Edward and the Protector Somerset. But when its martyrs 01 LIed at the stake, and when the royal prerogative ,vas arraied against it; it then became doubly endeared to the people, as the cause of liberty as well as of religion. Elizabeth, though not less a Tudor than her predecessors, was ,viser if not better than they. She at once disclaimed the title , of Suprenle Head of the Church, in such a sense as 111Ìght make it appear that her authority was spiritual, or trenching on the sole Headship of Christ. l She allo\veà the convocation to be consulted, both on the Liturgy and the Articles. And no\v both clergy and laity w"ere nlore prepared to adopt the tenets and the worship of the I eformers. }Ien, who did not wish to change their creed at the will of IIenry, had learned to dread the despotism of Ron1e, as exhibited in the reign of :ßIary. There \vere yet many different sets of opinion in the country. A large number of clergy and laity were still for conullunion ,vith I{ome and for retaining the mass; others had imbibed a love of the doctrine and discipline of Geneva, and vie,ved a surplice \vith horror and aversion: others again leant to ,, hat were called Lutheran sentiments, and were viewed by one extren1e as papists, by the other as heretics. Happily the leading divines in the Church, and especially l>arker, the ne\v archbishop, ,vere imbued with moderate sentiments, and succeeded for a time in steering the Ark of the Church skilfully amiù the fury of the contending elements. Their wise conduct, and the gradual progress of opinions, in the course of time appeased the vehemence of the Ron1anist party; though it is painful to add, that measures of a most cruel character were too often adopted by the friends of the Reforma- tion against the leading propagators of ROlnish doctrine; measures ,vhich stain the memory of Elizabeth's reign, almost as deeply, and not so excusably, as the fires of Smithfield do that of 1fary's. 2 Rut, though Romanism was then deC'aying, the opposite extreme party ,vas gradually advancing; and it advanced, till in the end it overthre\v the altar and the throne. Its influence, however, was" not great on the formularies of the Church. The Second Service Book of Edward VI. was restored in the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, with son1e important alterations, principally the insertion of rubrics and passages from the First Service Book, and partly the omission of one or two sentences which ,vere th o uaht need- , 0 . 1 In her I junctions set forth in the 'year 1559, referred to and confirmeù in the xxxlxth ArtIcle of the Church. See Soames' Eli:a6(tlwn Rdi[Jio'u. llistury, ch. v. 1XTIlODUCTIOK. 9 1ess1y offensive, or doubtful in their orthodoxy. The Pra:yer Book underwent subsequent revisions in the reigns of James I. and Charles 11., ,vhich reduced it to its present form. The alterations in the Articles have been fewer, and perhaps less important. Soon after his appointment to the primacy, which took place in 1559, Archbishop Parker set on foot various measures for the regulation and government of the Church, no'\y again under the care of a reforming sovereign, and ,vith a re- forming archbishop at its head. It appears that one of Parker's earliest labours was directed towards a recasting of the ' A.rticles of Religion.' He expunged four of the original Articles, viz., tbe loth, 16th, 19th, 4 I st, and added four, viz., the p 'esent 5 th, 12tb, 29th, 3otlJ, Inaking some modifications in the others also. In this work he was guided, like Cranmer, in a great degree by Lutheran forrnularies. As Cranmer had derived much from the Confession of Augsburg, so he took several clauses from the Confession of \Virtemburg. 1 Both houses of convocation con- sidered the draught of tbe Articles thus made by tIJe archbishop, and by hinl committed to their inspection and revision. rrhe con- vocation, as appears from an original document in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, made several further alterations, beside those wbich the archbishop had made. Especially, they erased the latter part of the original 3rc1 Article, concerning the preaching to the spirits in prison, the whole of the 39th, 40th, and 4 2nd , thus reducing the whole nunlber to 39. There was some little difference between the copy of the Articles thus submitted to, and approved by the convocation in 1562, and the copy afterwards published by the Queen's command, and with her royal approba- tion. The latter omitted the 29th Article, whose title 'vas 'Impii non manducant Corpus Christi in usu cænæ,' and added the fanIous clause in the 20th Article, 'IIabet Ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis auctoritatenl.' Both alterations are believed to be due to the Queen herself, in the exercise of what she con- sidered her undoubted right. The nUl'nber was no,v 38. An English translation of these Articles was put forth soon after by the authority of convocation, not apparently of the Queen. This translation does not contain the famous clause on Church autbority, ,yhich the Queen or her council had inserted, nor yèt the Article' Impii non manducant,' which the convocation had authorized, but '\vhich the ouncil had expunged. 2 I IJ mrence's Bampton Lectures, p. 233. 2 See Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 3-f. 10 I TRODUCTION. In tbe year 157 I, the .ATticles were again subscribed by both houses of convocation, and cOlnmitted to the editorship of Bishop Jewell. rrhey 'were then put forth in their present form, both in Latin and English; and received the sanction not only of convo- cation, but also of parliament. The Latin Articles as published at this period omitted the fanlons clause concerning Church authority; t.he EnO'lish retained it. Both contained the 29th Article, con- o cerning the ,vicked not eating the Body of Christ. rl'he .Articles, ,vhich were now 39 in number, making, ,vith the Confirmation, 40, were thus set forth ,vith the authority of the Queen, oÏ the convocation, and of the parlialnent. The clause concerning Church authority was still, however, in a lneasure doubtful; it being even to this day uncertain, ,, hether it re- ceived fully the sanction of cOllyocation. The bishops of both provinces soon after enacted canons, by ,vhich all melnbers "ere bound to subscribe the .Articles approved in the synod.! The mode in which the Articles, th us reduced to their present forIn, "ere drawn up and imposed upon the Church, is a subject which may ,yell admit of question and debate. The exercise of State authority, in the whole course of the Reformation, corre- 01 sponds more ,vith the notions of prerogative suited to those days, t.han with the feelings of modern tinJes. 2 But ,,,hatever may be said on this head, one fact is plain, viz., that the Articles, thus drawn up, subscribed, and authorized, have ever since been signed and assented to by all the clergy of the Church, and until very lately by every graduate of both Universities; and have hence an authority far beyond that of any single convocation or par- Eament, viz., the unanimous and solemn assent of all the bishops and clergy of the Church, and of the t\"vo U ni, ersities for ,veIl nigh three hundred years. In the interpretation of them, our best guides must be, first their o,vn natural, literal, grall1matical meaning; next to this, a knowledge of the controversies, which had prevailed in the Church, and made such Articles necessary; then, the other authori ed formularies of the Church; after them, the ,vritings and known opinions of such men as Crallnler, Ridley, and Parker, ,vho drew ] Cardwell's S!Jnodalia, Y 01. I. p. 127. :"! It will be rem mbered, that in the reigllS of IIenry \' III. aud Ed ward VI. the whole nation, and th refore of course the king anù the parliament, considered themselves as members of the national Church. Hence their interference in the reÎormatinn of the Church was. a Vf ry different thing from the interference of a parliament, not consisting exclusively of churchmen. The que tion, as to how far the laity ought to be cunsulted in draw- ing up formularies or services, may be considered as open to discu sion. INTROD"GCTIO . 11 them up; then, the doctrines of the primitive Ch urch, which they professed to follow; and lastly, the general sentinlents of the distinguished English divines, who have been content to subscribe the Articles, and have professed their agreement 'with thel11 for no' v 300 years. These are our best guides for their interpreta- tion. rrheir authoritj is derivable from Scripture alone. On the subject of subscription, very fe\v words nlay be sufficient. rro sign any document in a non-natural sense seems neither con- sistent ,vith Christian integrity nor ,vit h COlnmon ll1anliness. But on the other hand, a national Church should never be need- lessly exclnsive. It should, ,ve can hardly doubt., be ready to enl brace, if possible, all \vho truly believe in God, and in Jesus Christ ,,'hom He hath sent. Accordingly, our own Church re- quires of its lay members no confession of their faith, except that contained in the Apostles' Creed. 1 In the following pages an atteulpt is Inade to interpret and explain the \rticles of the Church, which bind the consciences of her clergy, according to their natural and genuine 111eaning; and to prove that meaning- to be both Scriptural and Catholic. :N" one can feel so satisfied, nor act so straightforwardly, as those who subscribe them in such a sense. But, if we consider, ho\v 11luch variety of sentilnellt may prevail amongst persons, ,vho are, in the main, sound in the faith; ,ve can never wish, that a national Church, ,vhich ought to have an the marks of catholicity, should enforce too rigid and uniforrn an interpretation of its formularies and terms of union. The Church should be not only Holy and .A.postolic, but as well, One and Catholic. Unity and universality are scarcely attainable, \vhere a greater rigour of subscription is required, than such as shall ensure an adherence and conformity to those great catholic truths, ,vhich the primitive Christians lived by, and died for. I See the Baptismal Service and the Visitation of the Sick. XO'fE.-The late lamented Archdeacon Hardwick's HistOl'Y oftke Articlcs appeart'd at about the Fame time with the first volume of the first edition of this book. The author had not therefore the advantage oÎ consulting it. He now finds a meJanchoJy pleasure in recommenùing it as most \-aluable. . ARTIOLE I. Of Fai.lh in the Holy Trinity. De fide in Sac1'osanclam Trillilalem. '.rHERE is but one Ii ving and true God, verlasting, without body, parts:, or pas- siems; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness: the ::\Iaker and Pres r\.er of all things, both visible and in\"isible. .And in unity of this Godhead there be threp Persons, of one substance. power, and t'ternity, the }'ather, the S(ln, and the Holy Gho:5t. Usus e t ViVI1S et venlS Deus, æternl1c.;:, incorporeus, impartibilis, ilIlpassibilis; innllensæ potentiæ, sa.pientiæ, ac Loni- tatis; Creator et Conservator omnium, tum visibiliulll, tum invisibiliulIl. Et in unitate hujus divinæ uaturæ, tres sunt Per:;onæ, ejusdem essentiæ, potentiæ, ac æternitati:;; Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus. SECTIO I.-HISTORY. T HIS Article is evidently concerned \vith two son1ewhat distinct su bj ects. FIRST. The Nature anù essential attributes of God in the general. SECO DLY. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The FIRST part is co 111m on to natural and revealed religion, and requires less either of illustration from history or demonstra- tion from Scripture; it having been the universal creed, both 01 Jews and Christians, that ' God is one, living and true, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the Iaker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible.' There have, however, been two classes of speculators, against ,vhom ,ve may suppose these ,vords to be directed. I. The obscure sect of the _4nthrop01nOTphites is reckoned as a heres) of the fourth century, and is said to have reappeared in the tenth, in the district of Vicenza in Italy.1 'l'heir opinion, as expressed by their name, was that God ,vas in form as a lnan, ll1aterial, and with body and members like our own. 2 2. The more important and dangerous error of the Pantheists lnay not be directly al1 uded to in tbe Article, but is plainly opposed by it. Pantheisn1 has been the prevailing esoteric doctrine of all Paganism, and, ,vith various modifications, the sources of a great 1 See Suicer, s. v. åv8pw7rop.op<þîraL, and )Iosheim, Ecclcsiast. IIisl. Cent. x. Pt. II. cb. v. 4. 2 The )Iormons are .Antbropomorphites. 14 OF THE HOLY TRI5ITt. [..\RT. I. part of ancient philosophy. 1 The Orphic Hyn1ns have evident traces of it. Thales and the Eleatic School expressed it distinctly, and in the definite language of philosophy.2 There can be little doubt that it ,vas the great doctrine revealed in the mysteries. The Egyptian Theology ,vas plainly based upon it. 3 It was at the root of the Polytheisln of the Greeks and Romans; and their gross idolatry was probably but an outward expression of its ore mystic refinen1ents. 4 The Brahmins and Buddhists, whose religious systen1s still prevail amongst nearly half the human race, though also, exoterically, gross Polytheists, are yet, in their philosophy, undisguised Pantheists. 5 The Jewish Cabbala is thought to have drank deep of the same fountain. 6 'Yhen the Christian faith canle in contact with Eastern philo- sophy, it is probable that Pantheistic notions found their ,vay into its corruptions. Gnostics and :nIanichees, and possibly sonle of the later heretics, such as the Paulicians, had some adnlixture of PantheislTI in their creeds. Simon 1Iagus himself may possibly have used its language, when he gave himself out as 'the great power of Gall.' Its leading idea is, that God is every thing, and every thing is God. Î Though all nlind, whether of men or animals, is God; yet no individual n1Ìnd is God; and so all distinct personality of the Godhead is lost. The supreme being of the Hindoos is therefore neither n1ale nor female, but neuter. s All the numberless forms of n1atter are but different appearances of God; and though He is invisible, yet e\rerything you see is God. 9 Accordingly, the Deity I-limself becomes identified with the \vorshipper. ' He, who knows the Deity, is the Deity itself.' 10 Hence, as all living beings are Inanifestations of, and enlanations from, the Deity; the devout 1 Cudworth, Int. Byst. ch. IV. pas 'im, especially S 29, 3 2 , 33, 34. Cudworth, B. I. ch. IV. SS 30, 3 I ; Tennemalln' J[anual of Plâlosopl y, pp. 59, 70. (Oxf. 1832.) :} 'E)'w fiILL 7râv rò Î'f)'OVÒ , KaL ÔV, Kat i(jJJ.l.fVOV Kaì ròv lJ1.ov 7rbr ov oùôfÍs 7rW eVrJTÒ à7rfKå vý.;fV: 'I am all that hath been, i:-:, and shall be, and my veil no mot.tal ever uncovered: -Inscription on the Temple of Sais, ape Plutarch, de Is ide. Again, ròv 7rpSJTOV ÐfÒV T 7råvTL ròv aÙTÒV VOJ1.í5"OV(jL. Plutarch, from Hecatæus, de Isid. ct Osi1"i. See Cudworth. ch. IV. Vol. II. pp. 170, 175. All that Cl1llworth adduces, and it is well worth reading. sho\V that the E3yptians were genuine l'antheists. 4 See Faber, Pagan Idola t l'Y, B. 1. cli. iii. See Sir \V. Jones's TJ"orks, Vol. 1. p. 252; 1\Iaurice's HistO'J'yof }/indost(tn and india,?}, Antiquities, passim; Fabpr, as above; l\Iill's Pantheistic Theory; Hartz, .I.1lanual of Buddhism. 6 Burton's Bampton Lectures, note 16. 7 Jupiter est quodcumque vidps, quo- cnmqne moveris, Lucan IX. 580. See also Virgo Eclo[J. III. 60, Gem'g. IV. 219, ""En. VI. 724, Lucret. II. 61. 8 Sir \V..J ones's TVO'l'ks, Vol. I. p. 249. 9 Sir 'V. Jones's TrO'l'ks, VoL 1. p. 25 2 ; 'Yard's Religion of tlte Hindoos, VoL IV. 274. 10 Mill's Pantheistic Theory, p. 159. SEC. I. ] OF THE HOLY TRIXITY. 15 Brahmin or Buddhist, while he believes that by piety man may become more and more truly God, looks forward as his final con- summation and bliss, to l{i1'u.:ana, or absorption in the Deity. 'fhis system of religion or philosophy, which has prevailed so extensively in heathendom, and found favour with the early philosophic heretics, and probably with the brethren of the Free Spirit in the twelfth century, 1 was taught in the seventeenth century by Benedict de Spinoza, a Portuguese Jew,2 and has been called from him SpinozisIll. Some of the philosophic divines of Germany have revived it of late, and have taught it as the solution of all the Christian mysteries; so that with them the Christ or God-man is not the individual personal Jesus; but 'mankind is God made n1an, the n1iracle-worker, the sinless one; who dies and rises, and ascends into Heaven, and through faith in w horn man is justified. rfhe History of the SECOSD part of this Article, that is, of the doctrine of the Trinity, may be considered as almost equivalent to the history of Christianity. I. "''"''hat degree of knowledge of it there 111ay ha\ e been previously to the coming of Christ, is a question of great interest, but of great difficulty. This question, as regards Scripture, must be deferred to the next section; here it is considered by the light of history alone. It has been thought, with considerable reason, that there are distinct intimations of it (I) in the Jewish writings, (2) in the mythology of lllost ancient nations, (3) in the works of Plato and other philosophers. I. The J e"\\ish TargUl1lS and Philo-J udæus both speak frequently of the IVord of tlte L01'd. The latter may possibly have been indebted to philosophic sources. This can IJardly be conjectured with probability of the former; and, although none of thelll are much earlier than the Christian era, there is no doubt that they speak the language and contain the tradition of former ages. Passages, such as that in the Targum on Psalm cx., where 'the Lord said unto nlY Lord' is rendered' the Lord said unto His 'V ord,' and many like it, seern, at first sight at least, very clear1v to indicate a notion of Personal Pluralit, in the Divine 1 l\Iosheim, Cent. XII. Pt. II. ch. v. ro. 2 l\losheim, Cent. XVII. I, 24; Ten- nemann, p. 324. Giordano Bruno, in ths sixteenth century, aDominican, was burnt at Rome as a heretic, A.D. 1600, for hú d- ing opinions very similar to Pantheism. See Tennernann, p. 283. 16 OF THE HOLY THIXITY. [ART. I. U llit, .1 Yet, of late, a different opinion has prevailed concerning the ;ianification of the term Jlell Ta or lVorcl (,', N' " ) used ü in the 'raraums. it beino- contended , that the P hrase llleans r:ot a 0' 0 distinct and separate Person, but is, in fact, only another form of the pronoun' IIimself.' 2 Both views have found abJe advocates and nlay be supported by considerable arguments; and therefore the qnestion concerning the Jewish opinions on the Trinit.y must ùe considered as one ,vhich is not funy decided. 2. In the lnythology of almost all nations, it is plain, that the l1utH bel' three has been a sacred number. The triads of classical mythology (e.g. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades: or again, J upiter, Juno, and Iinerva, in the Capitol) are 'well kno,vn. 3 ::\10re relnarkable by far is the Trill10urti of Hindostan. Chris- tians have frequently believed that the Trin10urti originated in onle patriarchal tradition, whilst unbelievers have found in it all argunlent against the Christian Faith, as being merely one development of the n1any speculations concerning God, which have prevailed in India and elsewhere. In answer to the latter, it may be enough to say, that the whole significance of the Tri- 1110urti is utterly unlike that of the Trinity, the likeness being in number only. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, ""ere no tripersonal unity, but three distinct, created divinities, embodiments of thp various po\vers of nature; though subsequently both Vishnu and Siva ,vere, by their respective votaries, identified ,vith the Great Supreme. And, on the other band, it is now well ascertained, that the gods of the 'rrimourti "'"ere unknown to the Vedas and lnore ancient books of the Hindoos ; 4 so that the origin of a belief in them cannot be traced to primitive tradition, but ill ust more probably be ascribed to the speculations of later Indian Theo- sophists. 5 3. Plato and some other Greek philosophers are generally considered as having expounded a doctrine which bears SOlne 1 See Allix's Testimony of the Ancient. .Jewish Church against the Unita1.ial1s. Bryant's Upinionsof Philo-Judæus. Bull, Fid. Nic. De.t: I. I. 16-19. 2 Burton's Ba'lnpton Lectu1'cS, Leet. YII. p. 221, note 93. 3 Cudworth, B. I. ch. IV. 27, p. 319 ; 32, p. 470. The Jupiter, Juno, and Iinerva, of the Capitol were the same as the three great goods, Tinia, Cupra, and )Iem'va, who had Temples ill every Etrus- can city. oJ See especially Professor 'Vilson'8 translation of the Ri!J Veda. 'fhe h'gelld of Crishna, which seemed peculiarly to resemble :some portions of Christian his- tory, occur;:; first in the Bhagavat Gita, a work of about the third century A.D. Some part of it has probably been directly borrowed from the Gospels, or Apocryphal Gospels. The student may consult Rev. C. Hardwick's Christ and other .I.1Iaste1.s, Part II. 5 On the Trinity of Zoroaster and the Iagi, see Cudworth, In tell. Syst. B. I. ch. IV. 16, &c. On the appearance of a Trinity in the Egyptian Pantheism, see 18, Vol. II. p. 194. SEe. 1.J OF THE HOLY TRIXITY. 17 reselll Llance to the doctrines of the Gospels.! If it be so, we may, probably enough, trace his sentiments to SOllie like source of patriarchal tradition or Jewish creed. Some think Plato had it of Pherecydes of Syros, who may perhaps have learned it frorn some eastern source. Others, that, according to the testilnony of umenius, Plato gained a knowledge of Hebre,v doctrine during his thirteen years' residence in Egypt. 2 13ut, on the other haud, it has been urged, that Plato's vie,v of the r,ogos was utterly unlike the Christian belief in the Trinity. It is said he never spoke of the 'V ord or 'Reason of God, as a distinctly exist.ing person; it was only a n10de or relation, in which the operations of the Deity might be contemplated.' 3 Aiter the Christian Revela- tion, indeed, philosophic Christians, and, still more, philosophic heretics, early used Platonic terms to express Christian doctrine. Hence the language of philosophy became tinged ,vith the language of Christianity: hence, too, at a very early period, the heretics, using the language of Platollis111, corrupted Christianity with Platonic philosophy. Hence, again, St. John, ,vho wrote after the rise of such heretics, uses language w"hich theJ had in- troduced; yet not in their sense of such language, but with the very purpose of correcting their errors. 4 It is clear then that, in more ways than one, we may account for the fact, that St. John used terms hich had been used before the Christian Revelation; and the sneer of the infidel, ,vhich hints that he learned his doc- trine from Plato, becon1e8 harmless and unnleaning. 5 II. 'Vhen once the mysterj of the Trinity had been revealed in the Gospel, it became the fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Yet ,ve must not expect to find the first Christian ,vriters using the same technical language to express their belief in it, which afterwards became necessary, when heresy sprang up, and controversy gave rise to definite controversial terms. Unitarian ,vriters have charged Justin 11artyr (A.D. I 5 0) with being the first to introduce 'the Platonic doctrine of a s8('ond God' into Christianity; that is to say, they have admitted that J ustin Iartyr speaks of Christ as God, but deny that the Apostolic fathers held the doc- trines of Trinitarianism: Such assertions, however unfounded, I On Plato's T1 o inity, see Cudworth, B. I. ch. IV. 24 ; VoL II. p. 3 00 , 34 ; VoL III. pp. 54, 82, &c. 2 On the statement of Kumenius. who asks, I 'Vhat is Plato, but l\Ioses in Attic?' see Lardner's Test. of .Anc. Heathens) cb. . xxxv. Allix"s Judgment of the Jewish Church, ch. XXIII. p. 286. 3 See Burton, Bampton Leet., 1>. 21 3. 4 Burton's Bampton Leet., Lect. VII. and note 90. :i Gibbon's Decline and Pall, cbo xv. C 18 OF THE HOLY TRIXITY. [ART. I. render the doctrines of the Apostolic fathers not a little im- portant; as it could hardly fail to puzzle us, if ,ve found the earliest Christians and their most falTIOUS pastors ignorant of what 'we have learned to esteem the ground-work of the faith. There is certainly nothing in the subjects treated of by any of the ....lpostolic fathers to lead them naturally to set forth a distinct acknowledgment of the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the Divinity of Jesus Christ; and many expressions nlight occur or love to Chri t and reverence for Him, without a distinct enuncia- tion of the doctrine of IIis Godhead. It is therefore the nlore relnarkable and satisfactory, when we find, as ,ve do, in nlI the ,yorks ascribed to those fathers conlmonly called Apostolical, pas- saCYes which seem c1istinctlv to assert the Deit y of Jesus Christ, o and so, at least by implication, the doctrine of the Trinity. Ignatius, especially, is so clear on this point, that the only possible way of evading the force of his testimony is to deny the genuine- ness of his epistles. 1 1 The following passages exhibit some of the testimonies of the Apostolic fathers to the Divinity of Christ, and by implica- tion, to the doctrine of the Trinity. Clemens Romanus. 'The Sceptre of the :\Iajesty of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, carne not in the show of pride and arrogance, though Hemight ha\'edoneso.' (I 001.. xvi.) 'Being content with thepor- tiOll God had dispen:-:ed to JOU, and heark- ening diligently to His word, ye were en- larged in your bowels, having HIS SU}1'FER- IXGS alway before your eyes.' (I Oor. ii.) See also chapters xxxii. xxxvi. xlv. &c. Ignatius calls our Saviour 'Jesus Christ our God' (in the Inscription to the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans, also in Trall. 7, Rout. iii.), speaks of 'the Blood of God' (Eph. i.), 'the passion of my God' (Rom. vi.), says, , I glorify God, even Jesus Christ' (SmY1'1l. I). "Vhen God was manifested in human form (åvf)pW7rívw ) for newness of eternal life' (Eplt. xix.). 'There is one Physician, both fleshly aud spiritual, made and not made, God incarnate: true life in death: both of ::\Iary and of God; first passible, then impassible; even J eSl1s Christ our Lord' (Eph. vii.). 'Except Him, who is above all time, eternal, invisible, though for our sakes made visible, who was in- tangible, impas ible: yet for our sakes Lecame subject to suffering, enduring all manner of ways for us.' (lgn. to Polyc. III.) 'God, who was manifested by His Hon Jesus Christ, who is the Eternal ,V ord, not coming forth from silence.' (/}fag1 . vIn.) The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead is plainly referred to in such passages as these : 'Study that so . . . . ye may prosper in Lodyand spirit, in faith and charity- in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit-in the beginning and in the end; , and again, 'Be subject to your bishop and to one another, as..T esus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and as the Apostles both to Christ and the Father and the Holy Ghost.' (11[agn. XIII.) Polycarp speaks most clearly in the doxology ascribed to him, as some of hi last words, in the Oirc'IÛar Epistle of the GhU1'cl" of Smyrna on the ßlartY1'dom of Polyca1"}J : '}'or this. and for all things else, I praise Thee, I bless thee, I glorify Thee, by the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all succeeding ages, Amen.' (MartY1'dorn of Pulyc. XIV.) On this passage see 'V aterland, Vol. II. p. 23 2 . - A vindication of Clement of Rome and Polycarp from th{' imputation of Arianism may be \ound in Bull, F. D. II. 3. 2. Ba1'nabas, whose Epistle, though per. haps not the ,"york of the Apostle of that name, is doubtless the work of one who lived nearly contemporaneously with the other Apostolical fathers, writes: 'For this cause the Lord was content to suffer for our souls, although He be the Lord of the whole earth; to whom God said before the beginning of the world, "Let 8EC. 1.] OF THE HOLY TRIXITY. 19 Justin l\lartyr, A.D. I 50, is the first early Christian writer of whom we have any considerable remains. If he does not state the doctrine of the Trinitv in the form of the Nicene or Athana- eI sian Creeds, he yet clearly and constantly asserts, that the Son is God, of one substance and nature with the Father, and yet per- sonally distinct from Him. l rrhe word Trinity occurs in a treatise attributed to J ustin lartyr (De Expositione Fidei); but this work is generally allo\ved to be spurious. The first use of this term is therefore cOllilDonly ascribed to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. I 8 I, who speaks of the three days of creation, which preceded the creation of the sun and moon, as 'types of the Trinity, viz., of God, IIis VV ord, and His wisdom.' 2 Irenæus, A.D. 18 5, gi\ es something like regular forms of creeds, greatly resernbling the Apostles' Creed (See I. 9, iv. 33). His Us make man in our image." , (Barnab. c. v.) Again,' You have in this also the glory of Jesus, that by Him and for Him are all things.' ön ÈlI AÙTt; 7ráJlra KaZ Ei A vròv (c. XII. See BuH, F. D. I, 2, 2.) IIc1'1ìws, who is reckoned an Aposto- Heal father, and was certainly a writer not later than the middle of the second century, has the foHowing: "The Son is indeed more ancient than any creature, inasmuch as He was in council with the }'ather at the creation of all thing .' (Simil. IX. 12.) , The Name of the Son of God is great, and without bounds, and the whole world is supported by it.' (Simil. IX. 14.) Concerning the genuineness of the seven horter epistles of Ignatius, see Pearson's Vindiciæ 19nat. in the second volume of Cotclcl"ii Patres Apoötolici. A synopsi:5 of his arguments is given in Dupin's Eccles. /list., in the Life of Ignatius. (See also TIp. Horsley's 'V orks, Vol. IY. p. 133.) Dr. Burton (Testimonies of the Ante-.Nicene Fathe7's, p. 14) enu- merates the following, as great names to be ranked on the same side with Ep. Pearson in holding that the genuineness of these Epistles has been fully proved: I. Vos8iu , Ussher, Hammond, Petavius, Grotius, Bull, Cave, 'Vake, Cotelerin , Grabe, Dupin, Tillemont, Le Clerc, Lardner, Horsley, &c. On the opposite side he reckons ::;almasius, Elondd, Dal- læus, Pripstley. The discovery of the SJriac version of the Epistles of Ignatius, with their pub- lication by Canon Cureton, has suggested the question whether the three short Syriac Epistles be not the only genuine text. It is satisfactory to know that, were it so, still the three S)Tiac Epistle contain some .of the strongest of the passages which prove the writer's belief in the true Godhead of Christ. See, for instance, Ign. ad l-phcs., cc. I, 9, 18 (I9 in the Greek); ad Poll/c., c. 3, where the Syriac has all the same remarkable ex- pressions as the Greek. See especially in the first passage, Eph. I, à.vasw7T'vpf;uav- rE Èv a'l.p.an OEOÛ, l l'. 1 r:>. The theory that the Syriac represents the original text never seemed vt:'ry likely to prevail. The recent inquiries of Zahn and others, and, since the publication of the twelfth edition of this book, the ex- haustive arguments of Bishop Lightfoot. have e!'tablished more firmly than ever the genuineness of the seven shorter Greek Epistles. 1 An example of his mode of speaking may be seen in the f.ollowing short pas sage from Apol. I. c. 63: 'They, who say that the Sou is the ]'ather, are convicted of neither knowing the }i'ather, nor of understanding that the God of the uni- verse las a Son, who being the Firstborn \V ord of God, is also God.' Of J ustill' S 8entiments on the Logos and the Trinity, see Bull, F. D. II. 4; 'Vaterland, III. pp. 157, 24 6 ; Burton's Testimonies of Ante- lVicene Fathers, p. 30; Bp. Kaye's Just. l1Im.t., ch. II., where also, in the Appendix, is an account of the opinions of Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Antioch. 2 Ad Antolycum, Lib. II. p. 106. rÚ1rOL Tplaöor. roíJ OEOíJ, Kat TOD Aó)'ov aVTOÛ, Kal. Ti} olþla ai'Tov. On his doctrine, consult Bull, F. D. II. 4, 10. e :3 o OF TIlE HOLY TRI ITY. [AUT. I. :-:tatenlents of the Deity of Christ are singularly clear, and he expressly tells us that the Scriptures ,vould never have given to anyone absolutely the name of God, unless he -were truly God. 1 There is a well-known passao'e in a heathen author, sOlne\vhat _ tJ earlier than Irenæus (the PhilojJaIris of Lucian), which shows the received doctrine of the Church, at which he sneers, n10re plainly perhaps than if the words had been those of a Christian. There is a doubt whether the \vork is Lucian's or not; but its genuineness is Dot of much consequence, if, as is generally adnlitted, it was either his writing, or that of some cOlltelnpOl'ary of his. 2 Tertullian, A.D. 200, both distinctly propounds the doctrine of th Trinity, and is the first Latin ,vho used the term Trinitas. 3 'Ve lnight trace the chain onwards through Clement of Alex- andria, Origen, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Dionysius, and so down to the Council of Nice. Some may see in the bold speculations of ()rigen the gerll1 of heresy even on the important doctrine of the Trinity; and Dionysius of Alexandria, in his zeal against Sabellius, appears to have been led into some heedless expressions. There is, ho\vever, little donbt that Origen was a firm believer ill the Trinity; and the e:xpl'essions of Dionysius, which called forth the censure of his brethren, ,vere afterwards fully and satisfactorily explained. Thus aU the early fathers, who continued in the com- nlunion of the Catholic Church, are unanÏ1nous in their testimony to the faith of that Church in one God and Three Persons in the Godhead. Some even, who ,vere charged \vith schism or heresy, as Ion- tanus and Novatian, were yet c1ear and decided in their langnage 1 Iren. III. c. YI. S I ; Burton, .Ante- 1tïcene Fathers, p. 68; where see the tes- timonyof Ireuæus at length; also in BulI, F. D. II. s; and Beaven's Account of Jrenæus, ch, IV. The pass3.ge is : Kpl Kal TLva f1,CJJ'- fJ-ó(JwfJ.al )'E; TpL 'TtþtfJ-Éåollra 8EÒV, fJ-É- )'av, 11fJ.ßP070V. oúpavlwva, vlòv 7rarpòç, 7rVEÛfJ.a fK TOÛ ñarpòç fK7rOPWÓþtf.VOV, Év fK Tpt{;.'JI, Kal f fVÒ" Tpla. 3 e.!)., ad,'. Praxeam, c. III. Itaflue duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis præ- Jicari, se Vero unius Dei cultores præ- SUlllUllt, quasi non et U nitas iITatinna- biliter collecta hæresin faciat, et Trinitas rational iter expensa veritatcm consti- tuat. Dr. Hey, in his Lectures on the }"'irst Article, observes that the charae which the hpretic:5 made against the Catholics of holding thr e G ods,. is to him the strongest e\,idence that the Catholics held the doc- trine of the Trinity. Tertullian distinctly illustrates the consul>:5tantiality of th :Persons in the Godhead, by introducing the comparison uf the sun. and a ray from the sun, or light kindled from light. As the sub- stance of the light remains the same, though a ray has been sent forth, or an- other light kindled, 'so what proceeds from God is both God and the Son of God, and both are one.' Apol. c. XXI. See Bull, F. D. II. 7; Burton, p. 162; and Bp. Kaye's 1'c'rtull;an, p. 553, where the ambiguity of some of 1'ertulliall's language is fully considered. The use of the word T'/'inity, first to be found in Greek in Theophilus, and in Latin in Tertullian, received synodical authority in the Council of Alf:xalJdria, A.D. 317. SEC. 1.J OF THE HOLY TRIXITY. 21 on this head. Bingham 1 has collected abundant proof that the devotions of the ancient Church were paid to every Person of the Blessed Trinity. Bishop Bull, in his þ 7 idei Nicænæ Defensio, and Dr. Burton, in his Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathcrs, have given fully the testimonies of the fathers to the Godhead of Christ before the Council of lce. To their works the student n1ay refer for further evidence that the doctrine of. the rrrillity was finnly and fully nlaintained by the early Christian \vriters from the first. 2 But, though the Church was thus sound at heart, it had been declared by the ..I---\.postle, that' there must needs be heresies, that the approved might be made Inanifest; , and we find that, even during the lifetimes and labours of the ..I----\. postles themselves, 'thp mystery of iniquity di l already work,' .which soon after was revealed in the n1onstrous forn1s of Gnosticism and other ..AlltÌ- christian heresies. It is plain from St. Paul's Epistles, that there \vere two evil eleluents, even then, at work, to corrupt the faith and divide thp Church. Those elenlents were Judaism and Eastern Philosophy. The Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Tinlothy, and the \vritings of St. John, abound with allusions to thes dangers. The' Philosophy falsely so called' (')'VWC){Ç tEUJWVV,uoç), and the seeking justification by the Jewish law, are the constant topics of the .t\..postle's warnings. There are also t\VO points de- serving of particular notice: first, that these warnings are especially given to the Churches of Proconsular ...-\.sia ; 3 secondly, that St. Paul evidently connects with his warnings against both these errors eat'nest enforcement of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity. 4 ..I--\ccorclingly, in the early history of the Church, \ve find two classes of false opinions; the one derived from a n1ixture of the Gospel ,vith Judaism, the other fronl a like mixture ,vith Oriental or l}latonic philosophy, anrl both tending to a denial of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the supreme Godhead of Jesus Christ. Ag was most probable, the Eastern rather than the vVestern Church, and especially, in the first instance, the Churches of Asia 1finol', 1 Eccl. A llt i'l. Book XIII. ch. II. 2 See al o Bull's Primitira, Traditio, 'Vaterland, On the '[rinity; }'aLer's .A po - tolicity of Trinitarianism. 3 t;t. John lived latterly in Ephesus, ana especially addreRse:,> the Churches of A:-;ia. Timothy wasBishop of Ephcsn;;;, and St. Paul's most marked allusions to philo- sophicalheresyarein the Epistles to Timo- thy, the Ephesians, and the Colossians. 4 This may be especially seen in such passages as :Eph. i. 23; Co1. i. 15, 19; ii. 9. I Tim. iii. 16, compared with i\'. I, 2 J 3. 22 O:F THE HOLY TRI ITY. [ART. I. and afterwards the Church of ....:\.ntioch, were the birth-places of the heresiarchs and of their heresies. rfhese churches exhibited, independently of distinct heresy, a considerable tendency to J udaisrn. The celebrated controversy about Easter first arose from the Churches of Proconsular Asia adopting the Jewish com- putation, in which they were foBowec1 by the Church of Antioch. l Acrain in the East it was that the Judaical observance of the b , Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, prevailed; ,vhich is first condemned by St. l)aul,2 then by Ignatius,S and afterwards by the Council of Laodicea. 4 The earliest heretics, of w hon1 we read, are Silllon ::JIagus, and the Nicolaitans, both mentioned in Scripture; who adopted, according to Ecclesiastical history, the Gnostic philosophy, and endeavoured to combine it .with the Gospel. Gnosticism, in its Inore developed form, seems to have taught, that the one Supreme Intelligence, d,velling in darkness unapproachable, gave existence to a line of Æons, or heavenly spirits, who were all, D10re or less, pnrtakers of His nature (i.e., (If a nature specifical1y the same), and included in His glory (7r^17pw}J.a), though indivic1ual1y separate frolll the Sovereign Deity.5 Of these Æons, Christ or the Logos ,vas the chief,-an emanation frol11 God therefore, but not God Himself; although dwelling in the Ple1 01na, the special habitation and probably the Bosom of God. Here then ,ve see that the philosophic sects \vere likely to make our Lord but an emanation from God, not one with Hinl. Cerinthus,6 a heretic of the first centnry, is by sonle considered more as a J udaizer, by others more as a G Dostie or philosophic heretic. It is probable that he combined both errors in one. But early in the second centurJ ,,-e Dleet with the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who undoubtedly owed their origin to Judaism, although, like others, they may have introduced sorp.e adu1ixture of philo- sophy into their creed. 7 All th.3se held low opinions of the Person and nature of Christ. The Cerinthians are said to have held the comlllon Gnostic doctrine, that Jesus was a lnere man, \vith ,yhom the Æon Christ was united at baptism. The Nazarenes are supposed to have held the birth of a Virgin, and to have admitted, that Jesus was in a certain manner united to the divine ] See Newman"s Arian.r:, ch. I. I. 2 CoI. ii. 16. 3 Ignat. ad ./Jragnes. XVIII. 4 Can. XXIX. t::eSllicer, Vol. II. p.9 22 . Ii Xewmall's .ArzallS, eh. 11. 4, p. 200. 6 See l\losheim, Cent. I. Pt. II. ch. v. 16. 7 !\Iosheim, Cent. II. Pt. II. eb. v. 2, 3. See aho Burton's B(tmpton Lcc- tu.ns, p. 247. SEC. I.] OF THE HOLY TJ I ITY. 23 Nature. The Ebionites, on the other hand, are accused of esteeming Christ, the son of Joseph and l\Iary, though \vith a heavenly mission and son1e portion of Divinity.l Here ,ve have aln10st, if not quite, in Apostolic tinles, the germ at least of all false doctrine on the subject of the Trinity. Such heretics, indeed, as have been mentioned, were at once looked on as enemies to, not professors of, the Gospel; and 'v ere esteemed according to the strong language of St. John, not Christians, but An tichrists. . In the latter part of the second century, tbe Church of ROU1E\ ,vhich had been peculiarly free from heresy, ,vas troubled by the errors of Theodotus and Arten10n. They are generally looked on as mere humanitarians; but they probably held, that Christ was a man endued with a certain Divine energy, or some portion of thE' Divine nature. 2 1'he end of the same century \yitnessed the rise of another heresy of no snlall consequence. Praxeas, of ,v11ose opinions we can form a nlore definite notion from Tertullian's treatise against him, asserted the doctrine, that there was but one Person jn the liodhead. That one Person he considered to be both Father and Son; and ,vas therefore charged with holding, that the Father suffered, whence his followers ,yere called Patripassians. 3 Noetus (A.D. 220) of Smyrna, and after him SabeUius of Pentapolis in Africa (A.D. 255), held a sÍlnilar doctrine; which has since acquired the naUle of Sabellianisll1. Its characteristic pecu- liarity is a denial of the three Persons in the Trinity, and the belief that the Person of the Father, who is one with the Son, was incarnate in Christ. But a more heretical and dangerous form of the doctrine n1ade, not the Godhead, but an emanation only from the Godhead, to have dwelt in Jesus; and thus \vhat we may call the low Sabellians bordered on D1ere humanitarians, and also nearly symbolized on this important subject with ,r alentinus and other Gnostics, who looked on the supreme Æon, Christ or the Logos, as an emanation from God, which dwplt in Jesus, and returned from Jesus to the Plerolna or God. I 1IoshE'im, Cent. II. Pt. II. ch. v. 21. 2 Theodotus, having denied his faith in persecution, excused himself by saying, that he had not denied God, but man; he, according to Eusebius, being the first who asserted that Jesus Christ was a mere man; for all former heretics had admitted at least some Divinity in Jesus. (See Burton's B(OJ pton Lectures. p. 24i.) This should seem to Rho\\' that T}1t odotus was a mere humanitarian. 3 See Tertnllian, adr. Praxcwn : also, Bp. Kaye's 'l.'e1.tullia Il, p. 526: )Iosheim, Cent. II. Pt. II. ch. v. 20. Praxeas i p1aced A. D. 200. He propagated his upinions at Rome. 24 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [ART. I. l3erylIus, Bishop of Bozrah, seenlS to have taken up this form of SabpIlianism. He was converted by the arguments of Origen. Bnt not long after, Paul of Sanlosata, Bishop of Antioch, tbe most important see in Asia, a man supported by the influence of the fanlous henobia, professed a creed, ,yhich some have considered pure humanitarianism; but ,vhich was evidently, nlore or less, what has been called the Enlanative, in contradistinction to the Patripas- sian, fornl of Sabellianislll. He held, 'that the Son and the Holy Ghost exist il1 God, in the same 111anner as the faculties of reason and activity do in man; 1 that Christ ,vas a mere man; but that the Reason or 'Visdom of the Father descended into him, and by hinl ,vrought n1Ïracles upon earth, and instructed the nations; and final1y, that, on account of this union of the Divine 'V ord lvith the nlan Jesus, Christ might, though improperly, be called God.' Several councils ,vere called in consequence of this spiritual wicked- ness in high places; and although the rhetoric and sophistry of Paul for a tinle baffied his opponents, he ,vas finally condemned by the Council of Antioch (A.D. 264), and dispossessed of his bishopric by Aurelian (A.D. 272), after having held it, in spite of condemnation, by the aid of Zenobia. The controversies which these various errors gave rise to, naturally tended to unsettle lllen's minds, and to introduce strife about words; and so paved the ,yay for the nlost fornlidable heresy that has prohably ever disturbed tbe Christian Church. Arius, a native of Antioch, but a presbyter of Alexandria, began by charging his bishop, Alexander, ,vith Sabellianism. It is most probable, that as his predecessor Dionysius, in his zeal against Sabellianism, had been betrayed into incautious expressions, seenling to derogate frotH the dignity of Christ's Divine nature; so Alexander, in his zeal to nlaintain that dignity, may have used language not unlike the language of the Patripassians. There is no doubt, however, that he was a sound believer in the Trinity. .... rius was, from this beginning, led on to propound, and mould into shape, his own dangerous heresy. It ,vas unlike the heresy of any of his predecessors. For, though some of them may have been nlere humanitarians; those, ,vho held that the LoCYos dwelt in Christ held that LoCYos to be o , b either God or an en1anation fronl God and so in some sense , I He Rpoke of the Son of God as heing ,nn u,nsubsisting kllO'll..'ledge or encry.tl, É.7rL n'JI.J.7'J aVV7rÓerTaTo . In opposition to wluch, the father,;; of the Council of An- tioch speak of Him as fwerav fVÉp)'fLav KaZ tVV7rJerTaTOV, a lirinJ and sub istin!.l ener!/y. Routh, Reliq. Sac. tom. II. pp. 468, 469. Bull, Fid. lVic. De!. Lib. III. c. IV. Sf'e l\Iosheim, Cent. III. Pt. II. ch. v. IS; Newman's Ariar!.';; Burton's Bamp- I ton Lectures, Note 103. SEC. I.] OF THE HOLY TRIXITY. 25 co-eternal and consubstantial. Arius and his follo\vers, on the contrary, held that there once was a period 1 \vhen the Son of God was not (,jV -:rÓTE ÓTE OÙK v), and that he was created by God, of a substance which once was not (È OÙK OVTWV). They called HÜn by the nalne of God, and allowed to HÜll in terms all the attributes of God; but denied that He ,vas l olno-ousios of one Substance ,vith the Father, or in any sense one \vith Him. The true Logos they esteemed to be merely the vVisdorn, an attribute of God; but the Son they held to have been created before all ,vorlds, and so far enlightened by the 'Visdom of God, that He might, though improperly, be called the Logos, and that by Him God n)ade the world. They said of IIim, that, before He ,vas created or begotten. He did not exist (7rplJl 7f:VV17eñ OÙK v), and they eXplained the title of }J.oIJ07f:vhç, Only Begotten, as though it meant Begotten by God alone, 7HfV1j8f:lÇ 7ra p lx }J.óvou. 3 Here we see a second and created God introduced into the Christian Theology. rrhe Patripassians, on the one hand, had denied the Trinity of Persons; the ,... alentinians and fanichees, on the contrary, are accused of saying, that there ,vere three unconnected independent Beings in the Godhead. 4 But ArianisuL taught distinctly the existence of one, or two Beings, who were to be worshipped as God, and yet were neither one nor of the san1e nature with the Father. The inevitable tendency of this \va:-i either to direct PolytheislTI, or more probably and naturally to II uIIlanitarianism. 5 The Council of Nice, consisting of 3 18 bishops, ,vas summoned in 325 by Constantine the Great; ,vhicb conden1ned Arianisnl, established the doctrine of the bomo-ousion (i.e., that the Son ,vas consubst.antial ,vith the Father), and dre\v up the Creed ,vhich DO'V bears the name of Nicene, with the exception of the clauses which follow the words 'I believe in the Holy Ghost.' Arianism, thus checked for a time, soon revived again. Constantine ,vas con- vinced that Arias had been unjustly banished, and recalled him. His son Constantius, who ruled first in the East, and then over the whole elnpire, and afterwards Valens, who ruled also in the 1 He avoided saying' time' (XPóvoS') ; becau!Se he appears to have admitted that the production of the Logos was before all time. See Neander, Ohll1'ch History, Vol. IV. p. 4. London, Bohn, 1851. :! Pearson, On cite ()reed, Art. I. p. 135. (fol. Lond. 1723.) 3 This \Vas the fallacy of Eunomius. See Pt>arson, On the Creed, Art. II. p. 138. 4 The Apostolical Canon!; mention and condemn certain persons, who baptized in the name of three unoriginated princip1es, TpÚI}; åvåpxovl};. Can. A post. c. 49. And the first Council of Bracara says, that the Gnostics and Priscillianists introduced a I Trinity of Trinities. See Bingham, B. XI. ch. III. 4. :> See X e\pnan's A 1'ialls, ch. II. 5. 26 OF THE HOLY TIlI:NITY. [ART. I. ] ast, favoured the A.rians. I>artly by this powerful patronage, partly by subtilty of argunlent, and partly in consequence of the prevalence of Judaizing or philosophic doctrine, this dangerous heresy, or some modification of it, spread extensively, especially jn the Eastern Churches. The fan10us Athanasil1s, Bishop of .1\lexandria, exhibited unbounded zeal and courage in defending the Catholic faith, and suffered greatly from the persecution of the ATians. There then arose a variety of sects, 'with more or less of the Arian tenets; such as the Eusebians, Anomæans, Semi- J-t\rians. The latter adopted as their sym bol the term hO'lnoi- onsios, of like substance, instead of hmno-ousios, of one substance. :From a1nong the latter sprang J.l1acedonÙls. The pure ...A.rians, and those who syn1Lolized with them-the Anomæans, and ] unomians, and Sen1Ï-Arians-appear to have held, that the lIoly Ghost, like the Son, ,vas a created being. }'lacedonius, ]3ishop of Constantinople, whose followers were cal1ed l\Iace- donians, or Pnel1matomachi, seen1S to have been more orthodox on the Person of the Son; but to have esteenled, like the Arians, that the IIoly GLost was a creature. l This heresy was condemned at the Second General Council at Constantinople, A.D. 38 I, which added to the Nicene Creed the clauses ,vhich foHo\v (I believe in the Holy Ghost.' 2 With this Council the struggles bet\veen the Catholics and the Arians ended. Arianism thenceforth became a heresy excommunicated and detached from the Church. 3 It found a refuge for some time ,vith Gothic in' aders of the Empire, who persecuted the Catholics, but at length declined and became extinct. After this, we hear of a sect of Tritheists in the sixth centur)7, the principal defender of 'v hose doctrine ,vas Philoponus of Alexandria. 4 The discussions between the N olninalists and Realists of the liòdle Ages often led to sOlTIethirg like erroneous staten1ents of the Trinitarian question. The Nominalists were charged with teaching Tritheism, and their founder, Roscellinus, was con- demned by the Council of Soissons, A.D. 1092. A subsequent 1 l\Iacedoniani sunt a l\Iacedonio COll tantinopolitanæ ecclesiæ episcopo, (1'108 et IIvw,uaTo,uá.xovç Græci dicmit, eo quod de Spiritu Sancto litigent. Nam de Patre et :Filio recte sentiunt, <]uod unins e!St ejusdemque substantiæ, vel essentiæ, sed de Spiritu Sa.ncto hoc nolunt credere, creaturam Eum es"e dicentes. S. Aug\1 t. Hæres. 52. See Pearson, On the Creed, p. 316, Note, Art. VIII. 2 'Vith the exception of course of the famous' Filioque.' 3 luch information on theterms of the controversy may be found byturningtothe words 1'PLáS', Írrró(J"TacrL'i>! ovula, ò,uooúcrW'i>, .. ApfLO'i>, · H,uLápno'i>, IIvfv,ua (c), 7rvwp.a- TÓP.axoS', &c., in Snicer's Thesaurus. See also Hp. Kaye's llist01'Y of tlw Councü of Nicæa. 4 See Suicer s. v. TpL8dTaL, .and )Iosheim, Cènt. VI. Pt. II. ch. v. 10. SEC. 1.J OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 27 synod at the same place, A.D. I I 2 I, condemned ....'tbelard, another famous reasoner of the salue school, for errors on the subject of the Trinity; tbough, 'wbat his errors were, is a question of S0111e <1ifficulty. His great opponent, St. Bernard, charged him with nothing short of .Llrianism. 1 After the Reformat.ion, when freedolll of opinion was intro- duced, and an unsettled state of mind naturally sprang from violent changes, several heretics arose, who denied the doctrine of th Trinity. Seryetus, a Spaniard, in I 53 I, taught a doctrine like that of the low or emanative Sabellians: that Christ, who was born oÎ the Virgin, was united to one of the t,vo personal rrc]J'J'csentations or n odcs of existence, which God, before the world, had produced within Himself. fIe was apprehended by Calvin, on his way through Geneva, and })ut to death. Several other sects of Arians and Anti-Trinitarians arose about this tilne; sonle of which took refuge in l oland, as the country of lnost religious liberty. They called themselves Unitarians. In the Cracow Catechism, \vhich they pu blished as their confession of faith, they plainly deny the Divinity of the Son and of the Spirit, 111aking Jesus Christ but a prophet of God. In the meantinle, Lælius and Faustus Socin us constructed the system ,vhich bears their name. They "-ere natives of Tuscany, which they left frolll hatred to Romanism; and Paustus, after his uncle's death, joined the Unitarians of Poland, and there taught his doctrines, \vhich soon spread into Hungary, IIolland, and England. lie professed that Luther had begun, but that he would perfect, the Reformation, which was incomplete, whilst any doctrine, which Rome had held, remained to be believed. IIis fundanlental error was, that Scripture should be received as truth, but be made to bend to reason. He taught., that Jesus \vas born of a \-irgin, and having been translated to heaven, was instructed in God's \vill, and endued with that portion ûf the Divine power called the Holy Ghost. He then came down as a teacher of righteousness. rrhose who obey Him shall be saved; the disobedient shall be tormented for a time, and then annihilated. In a certain sense, Socinus allo,ved Christ to be called God, and worshipped. But his followers have generally looked on Him as a mere man; following herein that sect of Socinians, whose fir ,t leader was Budnæus. 3 1 Cum de Trinitate loquitur, sapit Arium: eum de gratiâ, sapit Pelagium ; \1m de Personâ. Christi, sapit N estorium. Bp.rnarJ. ad. Guidon. Cardin. Epist. 19 2 ; 'apud C:we, Jlist. Lit. p.652. 2 :!\Iosheim, Cent. XVI. 3, Pt. II. eh. IV. 3 Iosheim, Cent. XVI. 3, Pt. II. eh. IV.; also Cent. X\'II. 2, Pt. II. I eh. VI. 28 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [ART. r: In the Refornled Church of England, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, :ßlr. vVhiston, Professor of 1atbematics at Cambridge, adopted and maintained the Arian doctrine, or a slight modification of it; and ])1". Sall1uel Clarke, a man of learning and unblenlished cbaracter, maintained the subordination of the Persons in the Godhead in so objectionable a fOrln, as to lay binlself open to the charge of Arianism, or sen1i-Arianism. The lllasterly works of "\Vaterlancl on the Trinity 'were 111any of thenl called forth by the unsound views of Dr. Clarke. Later in the century, l riestley advocated with learning and skill, though without accuracy or caution, the far lllore heretical doctrines of the Socinians, or rather of the pure hUll1anitarians. 'rhose \vritings of Bishop Horsley are considered as of most value ,vhich are directed against Priestley. It has been observed, that the various bodies of Presbyterian Christians, both in Great Britain and on the Continent., have had a considerable tendency to lapse into Socinianisnl; ,\\7'ith the exception of the Kirk of Scotland, which has maintained a most honourable superiority to all other Presbyterians, partly, no doubt, because- unlike the generality of thenl-she strictly guards the Creeds of the Church, and other formularies of the faith. In Gern1any and Switzerland the rationalisnl, which has so much prevailed among foreign Protestants, has been favourable to Unitarian views of the Godhead, and hunlanitarian doctrines concerning Christ. SECTIO lI.-SCRIPTURAL PTIOOF. H.Ll VIKG thus far given a history of the doctrine contained' in - this .Llrticle, I proceed to the LJroof from Scripture. So nluch of the subject nlay seenl to belong to natural religion, that we n1Ïght easily be tenlpted to begin with proof from reason alone. It appears to Dle, however, that as the Christian Church presupposes acceptance of the Christian revelation, the proper way of treating the syrnbols and articles of a Ch nrch i to prove thenl from the authentic records of that revelation. The proofs fro III reason belong rather to the department of Christian evidences. Yet thus much perhaps it may be necessary to prenlise; that thp mystery of the doctrines contained in this .Article should be con- sidered as no argument against their truth. 'or, as, with all ou r SEC. 11.] OF THE HOLY TRISITY. 9 study, we can scarce attain to any clear understanc1iDg of the 1node in which \ve ourselves exist; reason alone should teach us to look upon it as hardly likely, that, with any searching, ,ve could find out God. The mode of His subsistence. "Tho is infinitely above us, may probably enough be infinitely aboye our powers to comprehend. According then to the division of the subject proposed above we have to sho\v, FIRST, in opposition to Anthropomorphites, that 'God is a Spirit, 'without body, parts, or passions.' SECO DLY, in opposition to Pantheists, that God is a personal living Being-' living and true, of infinite power, wisdonl, and goodness, ]'laker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible;' , everlastin g.' TUIRDL Y, in opposition to Tritheists, -\.rians, and every kind of Polytheists, that God is One. FoeRTHLY, in opposition to .Arians, Sabellians, 3Iacedonians, Socinians, &c., that, 'in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, tile Son, and the Holy Ghost.' I shall consider it sufficient to establish the doctrines, con- t .ined in the first three of the foregoing propositions, by simply referring to sonle of the man)? texts of Scripture, by which they may be proved; reserving for the fourth and last any nlore ex- tended arguments. FIRST, then, 'God is a Spirit, without body, parts, or passions.' J oh. iv. 24. Compo Isai. xl. 18, 25. Deut. iv. 15. Luk. xxiv. 39. Joh. i. 18; v. 37. Acts xvii. 24, 28, 29. ltom. i. 20, 2 I. I Tim. i. 17; vi. 16. '"'\Vithout passions' may be inferred from N urn. xxiii. 19. l\lal. iii. 6. Heb. vi. J 7, 18. James i. 13, 17. It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that, ,vhereas God is often spoken of in terms which express bodily relations, it is that the Infinite may in some degree be made intelligible to the finite; the Almighty having been pleased to condescend to our infirn1Îties, and to deal with us, as parents do 'with their children, teaching them by such figures and modes of instruction as their tender minds ,vill bear. SECONDLY. God is I. ' I..,iving and true.' Exod. iii. 6, 14, 15 ; vi. 2, 3. N urn. xxvii. 16. Deut. v. 26. Josh. iii. 10. I Sam. xvii. 26. Ps. xlii. 2; lxxxiv. 2. Isai. xlii. 8. J ere x. 10. Dan. vi. 26. 1\Iatt. xvi. 16. 30 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [ART. I. Job. xvii. 3. .At!tsxiv. 15. lloill. ix. 26. 2 Cor. vi. 16. I Thess. 1. 9. I 1'iul. iv. 10; vi. 17. IIeb. x. 31. Rev. iv. 8; x. 5,6. 2. ' Of infinite power.' Gen. xvii. 1 ; xviii. 14. Job xlii. 2. Jer. xxxii. 17,27. l\Iatt. xix. 6. Eph. iii. 20. Rev. iv. II; xix. 6. 3. "VisdoIIl.' Gen. xvi. 13. I Sam. ii. 3. 1 Kings viii. 39. ,Tob xxvi. 6; xX\Tiii. 10, 23, 24; xxxiv. 2 I. Psal. xliv. 21; xciv. 9; cxxxix. 4. Provo xv. 3. Je1'. xxiii. 23, 24. Da . ii. 22, 28. Acts xv. 18. ltolu. xi. 33; xvi. 27. Heb. iv. 13. I Joh. i. 5. Jude 25. 4. ' Goodness.' Ex. xv. I I; xxxiv. 6. Lev. xi. 44. Dent. i,T. 3 I. I SaUl. ii. 2. Psal. lxxxvi. 15; cxviii. I ; cxlv. 8. Isai. vi. 3. Dan. ix. 9. Joel ii. 13. Jonah iv. 2. 1:ic. vii. 18. I.Juke i. 77, 7 8 . Rom. ii. 4. 2 Cor. i. 3. Epb. ii. 4. Heb. vi. 10. 2 Pet. iii. 15. I Joh. iv. 8. Rev. xv. 3. 5. ' Iaker of all things, visible and inyisible.' 2 I :ïngs xix. I 5 . N eh. ix. 6. Psal. xxxiii. 6; c. 3; Acts xvii. 24. Eph. iii. 9. Col. i. 16. Heb. iii. 4. I I ; x. 6. 6. 'Preserver of all thingR.' Deut. xxxii. 39, &c. I Sam. ii. 6. 1 Chron. xxix. I I, I 2. Job xii. 9. I>sal. xxii. 28; lxxv. 6,7; xcv. 3,4,5,7. Isai. xiv. 27 ; xl. I I, 12, 13, 15,22; Jer. v. 24; xviii. 6-9. Dan. v. 23. Iatt. vi. 25-30; x. 29, 30. l om. xi. 36. 7. 'E \Terlasting.' (}en. xxi. 33. Deut. xxxiii. 27. Psal. ix. 7; xc. 2, 4; cii. 12, 26, 27. Isai. xliv. 6; lvii. 15. Lam. v. 19. Rom. i. 20; xvi. 26. I Tim. i. 17. Rev. i. 8; v. 14; x.6. THIRDLY. 'Ve have to show, in opposition to rrritheists, Arians, and every kind of Polytheists, that' God is One.' 'Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord' (Dent. vi. 4). ' The Lord, lIe is God, there is none else beside HiIl1' (Dent. iv. 35). 'Thus saith the Lord . . . . beside :file there is no God' (Is. xliv. 6; compo ver. 8). 'There is one God, and there is none other but He' (:ßIark xii. 32). 'Th ('nly true God' (J oh. xvii. 3). , 'Ve kno,v that there is none other God but One' (I Cor. viii. 4). , God is One' (Gal. iii. 20). 'There is one God, and one J\lediator bet,veen God and Ulan, the J\Ian Christ J eSl1s' (I Tim. ii. 5). 'Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest ,veIl ' (Jam. ii. 19). 'l)enying the only Ijorc1 God' (Jude 4). 'The only wise God, our Saviour' (Jude 25). See also Ex. xx. 3. 2 Saln. xxii. 32. l)sal. lxxxvi. 10. Isai. xxxvii. 16; xlii. 8. 1\Iark xii. 29. I Cor. viii. 6. Epb. iv. 6. FOURTHLY. 'Ve have to show, in opposition to Sabellians, Arians, lacedonians, Socinians, &c., that 'In the Unity of the Gen. i. ii. cxxxv. 6. Rev. iv. SEC. 11.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 31 Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, anù eternity,-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' As regards this doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, we must not expect to find the same express declarations in Scripture that we find, for instance, of the facts, that' God is a Spirit,' 'God is a righteous God,' or the like. But it by no means therefore follows that the one is less tr e than the other. It appears to have been far from the design of the Author of Holy Scripture, to set down every article of Christian truth in the form of a distinct enuncia- tion. Scripture is not a systenl of catechetical instruction, designed to lead us, step by step, to the knüwledge of religious verities, and to place everything so clearly before us that, if ,ve will, we cannot mistake it. On the contrary, it is plainly intended that, if we do not fear the Lord, we shall not be able to penetrate His secret, anel that, unless our hearts are set to do His ,viII, ,ve shall not be able to know of His doctrine. If there were no other reason than this, we might see why many things in Scripture require to be sought out. But again, God has appointed various instruments for instruc- tion in His Church; all, of course, in subordination to the teaching of His Holy Spirit. lie has bestowed upon us, first, reason; secondly, Scripture; thirdly, the ministry of His word and Sacra- nlents. If Scripture were a regular course of catechetical teaching, so plain that it could not be mistaken; the prophetic or didactic office of the Church and the ministry would be altogether super- seded. Again, it is evidently desirable, that our reason, enlightened by God's Spirit, should be exercised to the understanding of His 'word; and one great blessing derived from this appointment is, that so, ,vhilst the ignorant may find enough to guide them safe, the most profound and acutest intellect may find abundance to employ its meditations, and exercise its thoughts. Else, ,vhat was suited for the one, might pall upon the taste of the other. Believing, then, that we are not only permitted, but called upon, in hUDlble dependence on the Divine guidance to use our reason, dispassionately but reverently, in order to understand what God has delivered to us, I shall endeavour to class together the various facts which Scripture has recorded concerning the nature of God, as far as they bear on this part of our subject, and then, by the common process of induction, shall hope to arrive at a just con- clusion froIn a general view of them all. Now these different facts of Scripture may be classed under four heads. 32 OF THE HOLY TIUNITY. [ART. 1. I. Scripture teaches that there is one Goò. II. There is nevertheless clear intÍ1nation of some kind of pI urality in the Godhead, even in the Old Testament; but in the New Testanlent there is a clear dccla'i'ation that The Father is God,-the Son is God,-the Holy Ghost is God. 111. This fact of the plurality is not in express terlns a con- tradiction of the Unity; such as would be the case if in one passage it ,vas said, 'There is one God,' and in another passage, 'There are three Gods;' for it appears from Scripture, that the l ather, the SOIl, and the Holy Ghost are but one and the saIne God. T\T. Still, though Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are but one God; there is plain evidence from Scripture, that the Father is not the Son, nor is either of them the IIoly Ghost; but that they are clearly distinguished from one another, and distinguished too as Personal Agents, not merely as modes, operations, or attributes. If I find these four propositions clearly established in Scrip- ture, I do not kno\v 'W hat more can be required to prove the doctrine of this Article, that f in the Unity of the Godhead there he three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;' and that these three rersons are 'of one substance, power, and eternity. ' 1. In the first place, then, Scripture teaches us that there is but one God. This has been already shown in the THIRD prin- eipal division of the subject. It is revealed as the fundamental truth of all religion. Whatever contradicts this truth is evident falsehood. Therefore Tritheisnl, \vhich speaks of the Father, Son, and Spirit as three Gods, is false. rrherefore Arianisnl, which speaks of the Father as the snpren1e God, and of the Son as another, inferior, subordinate God, iR false. Therefore every kind of Polytheism is false: for' there is one God, and there is none other but He.' Iark xii. 32. II. But next, plain as is this doctrine of the Unity of the ( odhead, there are (I) in the Old Testament decided int ilnat'ions of a plurality in the Godhead, and (2) in the New Testament express dccla1'ations, that rfhe Father is God,-the Son is God,-and the Holy Ghost is God. ( I) In the Old Testament there are decided intimations of a plurality in the Godhead. The Jews indeed were placed in the midst of idolaters, them- SEC. 1r.J OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 33 selves easily tempted to idolatry; and, being subjects of a carnal dispensation, \vere but little capable of elllbracing spiritual truth. It may therefore probably have been in nlercy, to prevent the danger of Tritheism, that the doctrine of the Unity ,vas so strongly insisted on, and so little said of a Trinity or plurality of Person . Yet i'ntimations are not wanting. I do not insist on the pI ural fornl of the nalne of God, because the Hebrews use plurals at times to express greatness or intensity; and such may have been the force of the plural in the name ElohÍ1n. But, in the history of the Creation (Gen. i. 26, 27), it is certainly renlarkable, that God said, 'Let IllS nJake man in OU?' image; , and then it is added, 'So God created man in His own image.' rrhis is the more remarkable if we compare with it what is said by St. Paul (Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, &c.), viz., that God nlade all things by His Son. The saIne plural expression occurs after the fall, when God says, 'The man is beconle as one of 'Us;' and at the confusion of Babel, 'Let 1.lS go down and confound their language.' 'Ve cannot concei\ e the infinite Creator of all things thus coupling any finite creature with Hirnself. Again, in the Ola Testall1ent there are various manifestations of God, which at one time are spoken of as manifestations of God Himself, at anot,her as nlanifestations of a l\lessenger or Augel sent by God: as though God \vere at once the Sender and the Sent-the G-od of Angels and the Angel of God. This may be observed of the wrestling of Jacob with the Angel (Gen. xxxii. 24). In Genesis it is said Jacob ,vrestled with a nUl1'/;; but he called the place' Peniel, because he had seen God face to face' (ver. 30): and where the saUle is referred to by Hosea (xii. 3, 4), it is first said, 'He had power with God,' and then in the next verse, , He had po,ver oyer the Angel, and pre- vailed. ' In Joshua (v. 14), one appears to Joshua, who calls Himself 'the Captain of the Lord's host.' Yet three verses further (ch. vi. 2), when the Captain of the Lord's host speaks to Joshua, the name by wbich He is called is the LORD (i.e., of JEHOVAH). From this we infer, that He, 'v ho came as the Captain of J EHOV AH'S host, was also Himself J EHOV AB. l In the second chapter of Judges, the Angel of the LORD appears to speak with full authority, as if He ,vere the LORD 1 Compare }:x. xxiii. 20, 21, where the Angel, whom God sends before the Israelites, seems lainly by Vel'. 21 to be God. . D a4 O}' THE HOLY TRINITY. [ART. I. HÙnselj: ' I nJade you go out of Egypt.' 'I said, I will never break }'ly covenant \vith .you.' Ver. I. The history of :ßlanoah and the Angel (J uag. xiii. conlp. VV. 20, I, 22, 23) seenlS to teach the sanle thing. But not only is One, who is sent by the Lord as His Angel, called by the highest name of God, viz. , JEHOVAH; but also there is indication of the clearest kind in the Ola Testament, that One, ,vho should be sent on earth by God, as a man, to suffer and to deliver, is also the :.B-'ello\v of God, and God Himself. Thus, in J"eremiah (xxiii. 6), the 1iessiah's name is called' tJEHOVAH our Righteoll ness.' In Isaiah (vii. 14), it is called, 'God with 11S.' In l\lalachi (iii. I), we are told, C The Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His rrelnple, even the ::\Iessenger of the Covenant whom ye delight in,'-language clearly used of the :ßlessiah, but as clearly lTIOst suitable to God. In Isaiah (ix. 6), the Cbild, \vho is to 1e Lorn as a l edeenler, is expressly caned C The ì\lighty God.' In Zechariah (xiii. 7), in a prophecy of salvation by the Christ, ,ve read, 'Awake, 0 s\vord, against l\Iy Shepherd, and against the lan that is lVly Fellow (or Companion ".o?? ), saith the Lord of hosts.' I forbear to adduce such passages as those \vbere the ''''''iSdOlll, or the \V ord of God are spoken of with personal attributes (e.g., Provo viii. ver. 22,23,24,30,3 I. Psal. xxxiii. 6. Isai. xlviii. 16); because we cannot be certain that in these cases personal attri- butes are not ascribed by the figure called Prosopopæia. But it is hard to explain how God in creation can use the plural number, speaking as to another, \vith whom He 'was, as it were, acting in concert-ho\v the satne Person can be both JEHOVAH, and sent as ,JEHOVAH'S Angel, Captain, or l\Iessenger,-ho\v the same person can be sent on earth as Iessiah, and yet be the mighty God-bo\v God can speak of the Ian, that is His Fellow- without supposing that some sort of plurality in the Godhead i Ïtllplied. J conclude therefore that in the Old Testament there 3.re distinct inti11llltions of a plurality in the Godhead. (2) But next, in the New Testament, there are not only in- timations of a plurality (such as the very use of the names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and their conjunction in numerous passages plainly imply), Lut further, it is distinctly taught us I. That the FATHER is nOD,-2. That the SON is GOD,- 3. rrhat the HOLY GHOST is GOD. J. rrhat we are taught the FATHEI is GOD, no one call EC. I1.J OF THE HOLY TnINITY. 35 doubt. So strong indeed are the expressions concerning the Father as God, that, if they stood alone, we should naturally con- clude that the Father alone ,vas God, and that, as there is but One God, so there was but one Person in tbe Godhead. 'rhus our Lord says (John viii. 54), c }ly Father, of whom ye say that He i your God.' gain, addressing the Father, He says, 'This is Life eternal, to know Thee, the only true God' (John xvii. 3). St. Paul speaks (Eph. iv. 6) of cOne Goel and Father of all.' .A.nd again, , To us there is one God. the Father, and one Lord, J eSl1S Christ.' (I Cor. viii. 6.) 1 2. "\Ve learn also from the teaching of the Xew Testament that the Sox is God. And this fact we deduce both fron1 1'enso'n- ((bie inference, and from direct statement. Our reason(lble inference is of the following kind. "... e often meet with passages in the Old Testalllent, which speak plainly of the Iost High Gall, applied as plainly in the :New Tes- tan1ent to Jesus Christ, the Son of Gael For exanlple, in Isaiah (x1. 3), it is said, that 'the voice of one cr ring in the wilderness shall pl'epare the way of JEHOVAH, and make straight in the desert a highway for our Gocl.' But in each one of the Evangelists this passa.ge is quoted. The' v oice' is said to be JolIn the Baptist; and He for whom he prepares the way, is said to be Christ. 2 Is not this the natural and necessary inference, that Christ is as much , our God' and' JEHOVAH' as John was the voice in the wilderness? Again, in Zech. xii. 4, 10, if we compare the one verse with the other, \ve shall see that it is written, 'In that day, saith JEHOVAH . . . they shaH look on JIe whom they have pierced.' But St. John (xix. 37) tells us, that this prophecy \\raS concerning the piercing of Ch1'ist. Therefore we must conclude, that Christ is J EHOV All. Once more, in Isaiah vi. the prophet sees the LORD sitting upon His throne, even 'the I ing JEHOVAH of hosts' (vel'. 5). But St. John (compare xii. 3 ï -4 I) says, that the LORD, whose glory Isaiah then saw, " as Jesu.s Christ. Another reason, why we infer that the Son is God, is that the \yorship due to God is offered to Hinl, the peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to Hin1, and the power of God is exerted by Hitn. 1 The apparently exclusive appropria- tion of the na.me of God to God the }-'ather must be accùtmted for by the considera- tion that the Father is ever repre:-::ented to us as the Fountain and Source of Life, the 'Apx.7], or TI,)]1'i} fh6T')]Tor;, from whom eternally both the Sou and Spirit derive the same Life aud Godhead. See below, pp. 58, 61. 2 l\Iatt. iii. 3; la('k i. 3 ; Luke iii. 4 ; John Í. 23. D 2 36 OF THE HOLY TUINITY. [ART. I. (I) lIe receives worship as God, and is prayed to. See 1\Iatt. ii. I I ; viii. 2; ix. I 8; xi v. 33; xv. 2 5; xx. 20; xxviii. 9. Iark v. 6; ix. 24. Luke xxiii. 4 2 . John ix. 3 8 . Acts vii. 59. 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9. I Thess. iii. I I. Heb. i. 6. Rev. v. 8, 12, I 3. \Vhereas saints anJ angels universally refuse wor hip offered to them, and bid us \vorship none but God. Acts. x. 26; xiv. 14, IS. Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9. (2) rrhe peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to Him. u. lIe is eternal, existing from everlasting to everlasting. l\ficah v. 2. John i. 1-3; viii. 58. Co1. i. 16, 17. IIeb. i. 8, 10, 1 I, I 2; vii. 3; xiii. 8. Rev. i. con1p. vv. 8, I I, 12, I 3, 1 8 (which comparison will show that the language is all used of Jeslls Christ); xxii. r 3. It n1ay be added that several of the above passages show, that lIe is not only eternal, but unchangeable, t.g., Heb. i. 10, I I ; xiii. 8. ß. He kno\vs the thoughts, yea, all things. }Iatt. ix. 4; xii. 25. Luke vi. 8; ix. 47; xi. 17. John i. 48; xvi. 30; xxi. 17. 001. ii. 3" Rev. ii. 23. Those of the above passages, which show that Jesus Christ kne"T the thoughts of the heart, should be compared with such as the following: J ere xvii. 10, , I the Lord search the heart.' Acts xv. 8, 'God, ,"vhich kno,\yeth the hearts' (ó KapðLo'YJJWa-T1]Ç 8EÒÇ), and I I{ings viii.. 39, , Tholl, even Thou ONLY, knowest the hearts of all the children of men.' 1 'Y. He is everywhere present. ::\Iatt. xviii. 20; xxviii. 20. John i. 48; iii. 13. ð. He is self-existent, like the -'ather, having derived from the Father the saine eternal nature with Himself. John v. 26. Con1pare John xi. 25 ; xiv. 6. See also John i. 4; x. 30; xiv. 20. l")hiL ii. 6. 2 (3) The power of God is exerted by Hiol. u. He is Lord of the Sabbath, which God ordained, and none but God can change. Compo Gen. ii. 2, 3, \vith :ßlark ii. 28. Luke vi. 5. ß. He sends His Ange]s, as God. l\latt. xiii. 4 I. Rev. i. I ; xxii. 6. 1 The objections to Christ's omnisci- f>nce, taken from John viii. 28; Rev. i. 1 ; Mark xiii. 32; are answered by Water- la.nd, Moycr's Lcct'll1"e, Senn. VII. Jrorks, VoL II. p. 160. See the latter passa.ge considered below, unùer Article 1\". . 2 On Phil. ii. 6, see Pearson, On tiLt Creed, fol. p. 121. SEC. Ir.J OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 37 ')'. lie has po\ver to forgive sins as God. M att. ix. 2-6. 1\Iark ii. 5, 7, 10. Luke v. 20- 2 4; vii. 4 8 . Whereas, when forgiveness is lnerel y n1Ìnisterial or ecclesias- tical, the power is conferred by HilTI, and exercised in His narne. , Compo John xx. 23 with 2 Cor. ii. 10. ð. lIe shall judge the world. Job xix. 25. :\latt. xiii. 4 I ; xvi. 27; xxv. 31. John v. 22, 23. Acts x. 42. 2 Cor. v. 10. E. He created and presel'\ es all things. l John i. 3, 10. Eph. iii. 9. Co1. i. I ó. Heb. i. 2, 3, 10, I I, 12. 'Vith these passages compare Isaiah xli\r. 24, 'Thus saith the LonD ' (i.e., J EROV AR), ' I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by IYSELF.' . He has all power in IIeaven and earth. :ßlatt. xxviii. 18. J\Iark i. 27. John iii. 3 1,35; v. 19,21 ; xvi. IS. .A:lcts X. 3 6 . Ronl. xiv. 9. Eph. i. 20-23. Phil. ii. 10; iii. 2 I. Heb. vii. 25. I Pet. iii. 2 I, 22. Rev. i. 5, 8. Thus far, then, we have seen that passages in the Old Testa- ment, spoken of God, are in the New Testament applied to Christ., the Son of God: that the worship due to God is offered to the Son: that the peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to the Son: that the power of God is exerted by the SOD. If we had nothing Inore than this, surely our natural and necessary inference must be, that the Son is God. But we are not left to the inference of our reason only on this J110mentous subject. "\Ve have also direct statement, and that Inany times repeated, that Christ, the Son of God, is God. And here we may recur, for a moment, to ,yhat was said concerning intin1ations of a plurality in the Godhead in the Old Testament. Some of the passag-es there referred to, when seen in the light cast upon theln by the Ne'\v rrestament, become direct assertions of the Godhead of Christ. The prophecy in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, that a virgin should bear a Son, whose name should be caUed Immanuel, i.e., God with us, is, in the first chapter of St. :ßlatthew, distinctly interpreted of the birth of Jesus Christ. Therefore St. ratthew distinctly declares to us, that Jesus Christ is Emmanuel, God with us. Again, in the ninth chapter of Isaiah, which is a 1 On the proof of Christ's proper Deity froll Creation, see Pearson, On the Creed, p. II3; "\Vaterland, TVm'/,:s (Oxf. 1823), Vol. II., 2nd and 3rd Sermons at La,dy J\Ioyer's Lecture. 38 OF THE HOLY TIUNITY. [ART. I. continuation of the prophecy in the seventh chapter, the child that was to be born ifj called 'VV onderful, Counsellor, the Jfighty God, the Everlasting :Father.' This prophecy too is by St. :ßfat- the,v expressly interpreted of the Lord Jesus. (See :ßIatt. iv. 16, \vhich cornpare \vith Isai. ix. I, 2.) 'Ve have then the express assurance of the Evangelist, that Jesus Christ \vas caned in the 01ù Testall1ent, In1manuel, and the 1\1ighty God. "r e might add to these exarnples the language of echariah (xiii. 7), where the Lord's ' Shepherd' is called His ' Fellow; , and that of Jeremiah (xxiii. 6), where the 'Branch' that should be raised to David, is called 'J BHOV AH our Righteousness; '1 because hoth these passages are unquestionable prophecies of Christ, though not, so distinctly referred to by the Evangelists. 1'11e first chapter of St. John begins with a declaration of the ])ivinity of the Son of God. FroIn whatever source St. John <1eri ved the use of the term ' r.l'he VV ord of God;' whether he useù language already familiar to the Je,vs, or, as is perhaps n10re pro- bable, adopted the phrase of Platonizing heretics; 2 it is quite plain, that by the' 'V ord' he n1eans the Son of God, who was incarnate in Jesus Christ. This ís proved by Rev. xix. I 3, where it is said of Jesus Christ that ' IIis name is called the vV ord of God;' and again, by the. 14th verse of tbe first chapter of St. John's Gospel, where we read, ' The Word was made flesh and dwelt anlong us, and we beheld IIis glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father.' Of this 'Vord of God, then, who was the Only-begotten of the Father, and ,,,,hen Inade flesh, ,vas called Jesus Christ, 've are told (John i. I), 'In the beginning was the \""V orcl, and the VV ord was ,yitb God, and the Word was God.' Language cannot more strongly express the Deity of the Son of God, the \Vord of God. Yet, lest n1istake should occur, the Evangelist adds a sen- tence, which at once declares, that the lV ord was uncreated, and .was IIimself the Creator of all thipO's exercisin o ' that the hiO'hest b , Q' Q act of Al ighty power. 'All things were made by I-lim, and without Him ,vas not anything made that was made.' If no created thing \vas Inade but by Hinl; then was He IIin1self uncreated, and so lIe lTIUst be the eternal, uncreated :ThIaker of the universe. In the eighth chapter of the same Gospel, \ve find our Lord taking to IIimself one of the n10st special names of God. God had first revealed IIimself to ]'loses by thE' nan1E' 'I AM.' Here, thE'n, Christ havino' dec1arf'<1 Himself the Son of God havin g n , ] On this passagp, see Pear:-on, On tile Creed, foI. p. 148, Note. 2 Set: Sect. I. II isto 'ical View. SEC. 11.] O:F THE HOLY TRINITY. 39 assured the Jews that Abraham had seen His day and rejoiced; when they doubted the possibility of His having seen A brahan1, adds, ' Verily, verily, I SHY unto yon, before Abraham was, I MI.' Had He n1erely spoken of His pre-existence, the past tense would have seemed more natural. But He uses that tense, 'which expresses the existence of none but God-an unchanging present, which has no future nor past-and so adopts, as His own, the name of the self-existent JEHOVAH. That the Jews so understood Him is apparent from the fact, that, though they bore with Him whilst lIe called Himself God's Son, as soon as lIe had uttered the ,vords C Before Abraham was, I am,' they took up stones to cast at Him. Again (John xx. 28), "\vhen rrhomas is convinced of Christ's resurrection, he is therewith, though not till then, convinced of Christ's Divinity: for he immediate1y 'said unto Hirn, Iy liord and nlY God.' 1 Another important passage is that in the ninth chapter of Romans, vel'. 5: where St. Paul, speaking of the J e,vs, says that of them, C as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God, blessed for ever.' In this verse there is, as it ,vere, proof upon proof, that Christ is God. "First, the expression 'as con- cerning the flesh,' indicates that, according to sOlnething higher than the flesh, He had His Being elsewhere. Next He is said to be È7rl 7ï(lVTWV ' over all ; , as John the Baptist said of Him ( John iii. 3 I), ' He that cometh froll1 above is above all.' The very same epithet (È7ïl 7r VTWV) is applied, Eph. iv. 6, to God the Father; nor can ,ve conceive it to he of less significance than that similar title of God (ìi'\? ûtUTTOÇ'), ' the J.1Iost High. ' Next conIes the name (8EÒÇ) God, which is in every Inanuscript and every 'Version. Lastly, the whole is concluded by the ,vords ' Blessed for ever; , a phrase which is a translation or paraphrase of a well-known Jewish form 11sed only in speaking of the Almighty: (N i1 ' ì,;L Wi' ). 2 Again, in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, ver. 9, St. Paul says of Christ, that' in HinI dwelt all the fnlness 1 The objections which ha\'e been made to the plain sense of this passage may be seen fully replied to-Pearson, On tlte Creed, p. 131; and 1vliddleton, On the A1.tide, in loco 2 All 1\18S. all VSS. have the verse entire. All the fathers have it, except that in Q'yprian, Hilary, and Leo it is re- ferred to without ÐEÒS'. Such an excep- tion will be very far from invalidating the J"eading; but Erasmusobsen-esthatwith- I out ÐEÒS' the ver:5e would still pr(we the Divinity. See the passag-e fully considered -Pearson, p. 132; 'Vaterland, Vul. II. p. 133; l\Iiddleton, On the A 1.ticle, in loco ; l\Iagee, On Atonem.ent, Vol. III. p. 91. The Arian interpretation, which would make the latter part of the verse a doxo- logy to the }\tther, j:,; considere,l and rt-'- futed n ry fully by Bp. l\[iddleton. See also Tholuck and Alford on this pas- sage. 40 OF TH HOLY TRIKITY. [AHT. I. of the Godhead bodily.' rfhe Gnostics made a fulness (pleroma) of llumerous Æons or emanations frOIll God, and one of these , elnanations they believed to dwell in Jesus. The Apostle says, 110wever, that it was no single LEon, no mere emanation from God: but that the whole Pleronla, the fnlness of God, dwelt in Him bodily.1 rIhe first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, besides ascribing Creation and Providence to the Son of God, besides saying that all the Angels should ,vorship Him, distinctly applies to HÜn the nalne of God. It is thus the Apostle quotes the l}salms: 'To the Son lIe saith, rrhy Throne, 0 God, is for ever and eyer.' .A_nd again, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth.' Let us next take the im portant passage in the Epistle to the ] >11ilippians (ii. 5 -9). The A postle exhorts the Philippians to hnmility by the exarnple of the incarnate Son of God. 'Let this mind be in you, which was also in IT esus Christ, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be eq nal with God, but nlade Himself of no reputation, and took upon IIim the fOrIll of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, lIe humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' There are two \vays in which this passage, or at least one phrase of it (oùx åp7rarytJ.òv Jjry 1 í cra TO), may be translated; one, as in our yersion; the other (as Origen, Novatian, and rnany atter theIn, have interpreted it) 'did not pique IIiIllself on this His dignity; , Of, , did not covet and ear- nestly desire to be so honoured.' 2 It does not appear that one of these renderings is 1110re calculated to weaken the force of the passage than the other. Both of them are intelligible, if we admit 1 ee 'Vhitby on this passag-e. His Kotes 011 the Cl)lo ians are very g()od. "OS' lv }.J.opøiì SEOÛ lJ7råpx..wv, OUX, åp7ra"(}.J.òv irrf}ð'aTO TÒ ELVaL '[ua SEW' åÀÀà. Éavròv EKfVWUE, fJ.opØi;v ooúÀov Àaßwv, fV op.oLwp.an åv8pw7rwV "(EVOP.EVOS' , Kaì UXÝ)- }.J.an EVPf8Eì.S' wS' äv8pw7roS', ETa7rEÍ.vwuEv Éavróv, 'YEVÓP.EVOS' V7rT;KOOS' f../..ÉXPL 8avá- TOV, 8avårov ÒÈ uraupoû. "Vho, being in the form of God, thought. it not robbery to be equal with God (0r, (lid not parade, covet, or pique Himself 011, the being t-'qual with God); but emptied Himself (of His glory) by taking the form of a ser- vant, (and that) by being made in the1ike- Iless of men; and being- found in fashion as a man, He hum bled Himself by becom- ing olJediellt unto death, even the ùeath of the cross.' The participles express the manner in which the actions of the verbs were dfected. He, being in the form of God, emptied Himself of His divine glory. How 'Vb.r, by taking the form of a. senoant. And how did lIe take the forlÏ1 of a sen'ant By being made in the like- ness of men. And then, being no longer in the glory of God, but in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself. How By bt::comin cr obedient unto tleath. Hen e it appears that, as lIe humbled Himself by becoming obedient to death, so He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, and He took the form of a servant by being made man. The taking the form of a servant then, was the be- coming man, t.he assuming human nature: SI!:C. I1.J OF THE HOLY Tn.I8ITY. 41 that St. Paul is speaking of Christ as God; but unintelligible OIl every other hypothesis. The Arians indeed interpret the' being in the form of God,' DOt as though it meant 'being in the nature of God,' but as thou(rh ,ve were intended to sianifv, that Christ, before His incar- o 0 nation, acted TInder the Old Testament, as God's Angel, and Ies- senger, rep1"esentcd and personated God; and so might be said to be in the form of God. They would therefore explain it, 'that Christ, having been sent as God's messenger, and permitted to per- sonate and represent God, yet did not arrogate to Himself to be equal 'with God.' But it must be observed, that, if this were the right sense of the passage, then also the phrase, , taking the fOrIn of a servant' should mean, not the becornin!J 'really man, but merely personating or appearing in the sC1ubZa'{lce of a man; which sense of the passage might be correct, if the writer had been a Gnostic; not, as it was, St. Paul. But as tbe 'taking on IIim the forn1 of a servant' must mean that He was truly n1an, so, the 'being in the fornl of God' must nlean that he was truly God. It nlust be observed again, that, as the Apostle distinctly tells us, that Christ took tbe form of a servant by being made in the likeness of men; it is therefore quite plain that, before He was n1ade in the like- ness of men, He was not in the fOrIn of a servant. But who of aU created beings is not in the form of a selTant ? 'Vho, but the un created God, is not a servant of God? If therefore Christ was, before His incarnation, not a seryant, nor in the form of a servant; then, before His incarnation, He must have been God. The passage then requires us to interpret it as follows. ' Take, for your example of humility , Jesus Christ. lie, being in the form and nature of God, thought it not robbery to be (or, grasped not at being) equal with God; but emptied HÜn8elf of His Divine glory, inasIlluch, as He, being Lord of alJ, yet assumed the forin of a servant, by being made in likeness of n1e11; and when He was thus found in fashion no longer as God, but as man, He hUlnbled Hilllself yet further, by becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' In the famous passage in I 'fin1. iii. 16, we read, 'God ,"va.s 'the form of a servant' was t.he nature of man. It follows that the' form of God' was the nature of God. It must be admitted that oUX åp1ra"(- p.òv 7}"Yý}ðaro, i an unusual expression; but to the interpretation' did not make a parade (If,' or' did nut account it a thing to ue grasped at.' "the being equal with God,' the few parallel expressions which are to be found seem must favourable. On the whole pa age see Grotiu8, Hammond, 'V hit by, l\Iacknight, Rosen- miiller, l\liddleton in Joe., Suicer, 8. v. áp7fa"(p.ò ; Pearson, On tile Creed, p. 122. fo!' ; \Vaterland, V 01. II. Serm. v. p. 80 ; Bp. Ellicott, in loco ; Bp. Lightfoot, in loe. 42 OF THE HOIJY TRINITY. [ART. I. manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the ,vorId, received up into glory.' It is true that there are three readings of the word which is rendered 'God,' and that critics have now generally adopted the reading "who.' "Vithout controversy great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in the flesh.' 'The difficulty of interpreting the passage ,vith this reading is obvious. It is very probable, from the parallelislll of the clauses and the rhythmical form of the sentence, that the ,yords ',vho was Inanifested in the flesh,' &c., are a quotation by the ..:\.postle fronl sonle ancient hymn, doxology, or confession of faith, which makes the apparent break in the sense possible and intelligible. Again, \ve may observe that the ,yard '1fystery' appears in 1110re than one passage in the New rrestament to be used directly and appellatively of the incarnate Son of (}od, 'in whonl are hid all the treasures of wisdom and kno\vledge' (Co1. ii. 3). ] n Co1. i. 27 ,ve read of , this mysterY' . . . which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.' In Co1. ii. 2, the most ancient known !IS. (Cod. B.) reads 'the fystery of God, even Christ,' fronl the corruption of ,vhich all the other readings probably arose. If therefore the word J.lIystc"'/J in I Tirn. iii. 16, recalled to the Apostle's nlind the thought of Him, who is the ßlystery, the hidden 'Visdom of God, it ,vould be very natural that he should have used. the nlasculine relative, and have burst forth into the words of a familiar doxology or confession of faith, descriptive of the attributes and. actions of Christ. .A..nd this does alnlost as fully imply the Deity of the Saviour, as if the yery nalne of God had been assigned to Him. l There is another passage, in Acts xx. 28, which I couple with the last, because here too the reading is in SOUle dOll bt. St. Paul 1 The state of the question is nearly this: ö is the reading of C*F.G. 17. 73. ISI- ö of D*.-8EÒ of D*** .1. K. and nearly all curßÏve m s. B. E. H. are defective in this place, anù supply no evidence at all. The reading of A has been very much disputed. At present A reads 8(ò but the lines which distinguish eo from 00 are in a newer and coarser ink than the o:iginal. The IS. is greatly defaced in this passage: and it is now extremely rliffieult to decide what the reading origi- nally was. There is no trace now of a line eitlH::r in or over thp 0 written in the original ink; and from cl() e inspection I am !5atisfied that the tongue of the f ill tht. page on the other f;ide of tlw leaf might have been seen through, and have appeared like the stmke of the middle of 8. But it is difficult to say how fa.r this settles the question concerning thereadiug of A. The reading of YSS. is in favour of a relative, the Latin reading quod, theothers Ö except the Arabic (PoIJgl.) and Sla- ,'onie, which have 8EÓS. The Latin fathers followed the Vulgate in reading q'uod, except Hieron. in J es. LIlT. ii. who re:1ds Ö . Of the Greek fathers some are doubt- ful. Ignat. ad Eph. 19, Chrysost., Theo- doret, Damase., CEcum., Theophyl., read eEÓ . Cyril. Alex., Theodor. J\lopsuest., Epiphan., Gelas. (Cyzie) read ös. SEC. I1.J OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 43 exhorts the elders of Ephesus, 'to feed the Church of God, ,,,hich lie hath purchased with His own Blood.' 1 So strongly does this speak, and so plainly assert the dignity of Christ, that the fathers, as early as Ignatius, who ,vas a contenlporary of the Apostles, con- sidered themselves sanctioned bv these words to use the remarkable expressions, 'the Blood of God> and 'the passion of God.' 2 St. Peter (2 Pet. i. I) speaks of 'our God and Saviour Jesus Christ;' St. Jude of 'our only Lord God, even our Lord J eSllS Christ,' Jude 4. Con1pare Eph. v. 5; 2 Thess. i. 1 2; Tit. ii. I 3.: Lastly, St. John (I John v. 20) distinctly calls Jesus Christ , the true God.' , 'Ye are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This (OUTOS') is the true God, and eternal life.' The pronoun ' this' (OUTOÇ), in all propriety of speech, should refer to the last antecedent, Jesus Christ. Hence, literally and gramn1a- tically, the passage teaches that Christ is the true God. But also the context sho\vs, that it is of Him, and not of the Father, that St. John makes this statement. Our lAOI'd is called by Himself, and by His ...\.postle St. John, 'the Life,' 'the Life of men.' rrhroughout the chapter, the postle has been urging, that eternal life is in the Son of God. Hence when he has said aU he has to say on the subject, he concludes 'with once more assuring us, that Jesus Christ is both 'the true God and Eternal Life.' So cogent has this argument appeared, that some Ârians have admitted, that eternal life was meant of the Son, whilst the true God ,vas n1eant of the l ather. But it can neyer be denied that OVTOS', this, is equally the subject of both the predicates, trile God, and ctel'nallife. Therefore, if it be said, that Ch'}'ist is eternal life; it is equally said, Christ is the true God. Lastly, there is no instance of the contrary interpretation in all antiquity, the objec- tions being all modern, and of no weight in themselves. 4 "T e n1ay no\v then fairly conclude, that Scripture furni::-5hes us, 1 ewû is the reading of B and nine- teen ross., two of the Peschito, Vulg. Æthiop. Athanasius. Tertullian, &c. Kvplov is the reading of A.C.*D. E., and thirteen mss.; Copt. Sahid. Armen. Ensebius, &c. The fathers' authority is greatly for the first. The three readings efOÛ, Kvpiov, and Kupiov Kaì eEOÛ are nearly equally suppurtt-'d by ::\188. The VSS. in number are nearly equal for eEOÛ and Kvplov. The most ancient MSS.(B ) and the most ancient VSS. (Peschito and Vulg.) have eEOÛ. The phras9 'EKKÀwla TOU 8fOÛ occurs eleven times in St. Paul's writings; 'EKKl\:1]ula TOÛ Kllpiov new'r. See a1:.o Bp. [iddleton in loc.; Burton's Test.i- fI'l.nníes of the Ante-iYicene Fathers, p. 15. Alford in loco Ignat. ad .Ephes. I. }.LLfJ.:YJraè. l)VTH 8wû, àllatW7rVp'ÝJ(J'allTE ÈlI arp.an 8fOÛ; This passage is in the S\'riac. 3 This is, of course, assumin Ir. Granville Sharp's Canon on the Article to be established. See :Middleton, Pt. I. ch. III. Sect. IV. 2; and upon the five passages quoted and referrell to in the text; a:so \Vaterland, VoJ. II. p. J 28. 4 See \Y aterIand, Vol. II. p. 12 3- 44 OF THE HOLY TRI ITY. [.A.RT. 1. both by treasonable inference and by direct statcn ent, \vith proof that the Sox is GOD. 3. In the third place ,ye learn also fI'om Scripture that the J[OL y G HOST is GOD. Having found fron1 the Scriptures, that the Father is God, and that the Son is God, ,ve shall need the less proof, that lIe, whose nan1e is constantly joined ,vith them, is also God. Indeed but few win deny the Dirinity, though they ll1ay doubt the Personality of the Holy Ghost. Yet, since in old tilne Arians, l\[acedonians, and others, appear to have held the strange notion, that the Holy Spirit ,vas a creature; it 111ny be ,veIl to sho'w briefly that Scrip- ture does spe k of Him as Gael As is the case as regards the Son, so to the Spirit are ascribed the po,ver and attributes of God. (I) lIe is the great \V orker of Iiracles. l\latt. i. 20; xii. 28. Luke iv. J, 14. Acts ii. 4; x. 45, 46. Rom. xv. 19. I Cor. xu. 4, 8. I-Ieb. ii. 4. (2) He is the Inspirer of Prophets, and can teach all things. Iark xii. 36; xiii. 1 I. Luke i. I 5, 4 I ; xii. 12. J"ohn xiv. 26 ; xvi. 1 3. Acts i. 8; yiii. 29; x. 19, 20; xiii. 2; xxviii. 25. I Cor. ii. 1 3 ; xii. 1 1. Eph. iii. 5. fIeb. iii. 7. 1 Pet. i. 1 I, 1 2. 2 Pet. i. 21. (3) He dwells in temples as God. I Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19. (4) lIe is the Source of all holiness. John iii. 5. Rom. i. 4, 5 ; viii. 9, 14. 1 Cor. vi. 1 I. Ga1. v. 16, &c. Compare l\fatt. xix. 17. (5) lIe is Onulipresent and Omniscient. Ps. cxxxlx. 7. I Cor. 11. I o. (6) lIe is represented as the Creator. Gen. i. 2. Job xxvi. 13; xxxiii. 4. Ps. civ. 30, ,vith ,vhich compare Is. xliv. 24. lal. ii. 10. (7) lIe is everlasting. Heb. ix. 14. (8) Sin against Hinl is so great, that, though blasphenlY of all other kinds is pardonable, blasphell1Y against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable. .ThIatt. xii. 3 I. ßIark iii. 29. Luke xii. 10. Thus are attributes and powers ascribed to the Holy Ghost,- ,vhich can only be ascribed to God. But moreover Ire is expressly called God. In 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3, we read- ,rrhe Spirit of the Lord spake by 111e, , And His vVord 'was in my tongue, 'The God of Israel said, , The l{ock of Israel spake to nle.' .According to the usage of Hebrew poetry, it is unquestionable SEC. 11.] OF THE HOLY TTIIXITY. 45 that' the Spirit of the Lord' in the first line is the sanle as 'the God of Israel' in the third. In :ßlatt. xii. 28, our Lord sa.ys, 'If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God.' The parallel passage, Luke xi. 20, has, ' If I with the finger of God cast out devils;' where the word' finger,' like , hand' in the Old Testanlent, simply signifies by or by ,Juans of.l So tbat here God and the Spirrit of God are s -nonYlnons. Iu \cts xxviii. 25, St. Paul introduces a quotation thus, , 'Yell spake the Holy Ghost by the prophet Esaias.' On referring to the passage quoted, Isaiah vi. 9, we shall find it to have been unquestionably spoken by God. In I Cor. iii. 16, we read, , Ye are the temple of God.' In I Cor. vi. 19, the parallel passage, we find 'l our body is the temple of the Holy Ghost.' In Exod. xxxiv., it is re1ated that, ,vhen 110ses had gone up to talk with the Lord on 1\10unt Sinai, the skin of his face shone so brightly, that, \vhen he had spoken to the people, he put a veil over his face, for that they were not able to look upon him; but, ,vhen he 'went in before the LORD' (i.e., JEHOVAH), 'to speak ,vith fIim, he teak the veil off until he came out,' ver. 34. ow in 2 Cor. iii. 16, I ï, St. Paul alludes to this history, and plainly referring to this very Yerse, he says, 'Yhen the heart of the Israelites' shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. He then adds, (No\v the Lord' (i.e., the Lord 'before whom 1\foses stood, and to wholn the Israelites 'were to turn, i.e., JEHOVAH) 'is that Spirit.' In Acts v. 3, 4, when ...1.nanias had denied the truth before the ..A_postles, Peter said to Ananias, ' "\Vhy hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? ' And immediately after he adds, 'Thou hast not lied unto n1eD, but unto God.' Plainly therefore the Holy Ghost is God. Such are some of the passages of Scriptures from which we Inay infallibly conclude, that, As the FATHER is GOD,- nd the SO is G-OD,-SO the HOLY GHOST is GOD. III. Having shown that God is One, and yet, tbat as regards tbe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is said of each, that He is God; I propose next to sho\v that these two truths are not direct contradictions to each other, as though it were said in one 1 Thus i1t:' ":1 'By the haud of )105e8,' means merely' by )Io es.' 46 OF THE HOI Y TRINITY. [ART. I. place, 'there is One God,' and in another, 'there are three Gods,' for it appears from Scripture, that the Father, the Son, and the Jloly Ghost are but one and the same God. I. It nppears froll1 Scripture, tbat the Pather is one with the Son. 'rhis is expressly declared by our Lord (John x. 30), 'I and l\Iy Father are One.' ....-igain, He addresses the Father as being One ,vith I-lim; and prays that Iris Church 111ay be one Church in God as lIe and IIis Father are One: 'that they all may be One, as Thou, Father, art in 1\le, and I in Thee, that they also Inay Le one in Us.' Again, that' they rnay be One, even as \Ve are One ' (John xvii. 2 I, 22). Therefore it is, that the Lord Jesus says of I-IÏ1nself, , He that seeth ßIe seeth Hin1 that sent 1\fe ;' and in like manner He reproves His ... postle for asking to be sho\vn the r'ather, saying, 'Have I been so long tilne "Tith you, and yet hast thou not known nle, Philip? he that hath seen fe, hath seen the Father: and ho\v sayest thou tben, Sho\v us the Father?' 1 2. 'fhat the Spirit of God is one with God the Father, is shown by St. Paul, who cOlnpares the Spirit of God in God, to the Spirit of nlan in nlan (I Cor. ii. 10, I I) ; " \Vhat man kllO\Veth the things of a nlan, save the spirit of lnan \vhich is in him? Even so the things of God kno\veth no Jllan, but the Spirit of God.' 'rhe passage in 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3, quoted above, where' the Spirit of God spake by lTIe ' is synonymous ,vith 'the God of Israel said,' is to the same effect. 3. 'rhat the Son and the Spirit are One, may appear from the fact that St. John says (xii. 37-4 I), that the Lord, \vhose glory Isaiah saw. in the vision, recorded in the sixth chapter, \vas tlte Son, ,T esus Christ; but St.. Paul says (A.cts xxviii. 25), that the Lord, who then spoke to Isaiah, was the Holy Ghost. Again (in :ßIatt. xi. 27) \ve read, , 0 one knoweth the Father, but tbe Son.' 'Vhereas, in I Cor. ii. I I, we are told that' the things of G ad knoweth no nlan, but the SpÙ.it of God.' 4. Accordingly \ve filld, that ,vhat the Father does, that the Son does, and that the Holy Ghost does; where t.he Father is, t here the Son is, and there the Holy Ghost is; e.g., The Father made the ,vorId. Heb. i. 2. I Cor. viii. 6. rrhe Son made the world. John i. 3. Co1. i. 16. Heb. i. 2. '1'11e Spirit n1ade the world. Job xxvi. I 3 ; XXXlll. 4. Again, The :Father qnickeneth. John v. 2 I . 1 John xiy. 9; see also l\Iatt. x. 40; Iark IX. 37. SFC. I1.J OF THE HOLY TRINlTY. 47 'fhe Son quickeneth WhOlll He will. John v. 21. It is the Spirit tha.t quickeneth. John vi. 63. .Again, God the Father spake by the prophets. Heb. i. I. God the Son spake by the prophets. 2 Cor. xiii. 3. I Pet. i. I I. God the Holy Ghost spake by the prophets. }lark xiii. I I. 2 Pet. i. 2 I . Again, sanctification is ascriLed 'fo the Father. Jude I. To the Son. lIe b. ii. I I. 'fo the Holy Ghost.. Rom. xv. 16. 1 Ordination is ascribed To the Father. 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. To the Son. I Tim. i. 12. 'fo the Holy Ghost. A- cts xx. 28. Indwelling and presence in eyery Christian are ascribed To the Father. John xiv. 23. I Cor. xÍ\ . 25. To the Son. ,Jobn xiv. 3. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. To the Holy Ghost. John xiv. 17. From these considerations, and others like theu), we naturally conclude, that, though the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet are they not three different God , but one and the same God. Those, indeed, ,vllo take the Arian view of the Scriptures, maintain that there is but one God, even the Father; Lut they add, that the Son also is God, yet not the same God, but an inferior God to the :Father, and so not of the same. nature and substance with the Father. 'fhis is both self-contradictory, and contradictory to Holy Scripture. First, it is self-contradictory, for it teaches that there is but one God, and yet that there are two Gods. Secondly, it is contradictory to Scripture; for it is opposed to the passages 'which, as 've have just seen, prove the Son to be one ,vith the :Father; and it is opposed most distinctly to such passages as teach, that there is no God but the One Supren1e Creator of the Universe. For example, "e read, Isai. xlh-. 8, 'Is there a God beside :ThIe? l ea, there is no God, I know not any; , and Isai. xlv. 5, 'I am the Lord, there is none else; there is no God beside )le.' (So Deut. iv. 35, 39; xxxii. 39; 2 Sam. xxii. 32.) Now, if the Arian hypothesis be true, there is anot.her God, 1 See Jones' CatlLolic Doctrine of tlte Trinit!J. 48 OF THE IIOLY TRIKITY. [ART. I. besides God the Father, even Iris Son Jesus Christ, who is nut only another, but an inferior God to the Father. The only way, then, in ,vhich we can reconcile the two apparently contradictory truths, (I) that God is one, and (2) that the Father, the Son, and the IIoly Ghost are each said to be God, is by admitting as the Scriptures also teach us, that 'they are not three Gods, but One God.' 1 Thus far then we have proved-I. The Unity of the Godhead- II. That the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God-- III. That these two truths are not direct contradictions to each other; for that the -'ather, the Son, and the I10ly Ghost are but one God, not three Gods. But if this were aU that 'we could learn fron1 Scripture, ,ve n1Ïght naturally conclude, that the Sabellian was the correct hypo- thesis, and that the names of Father, Son, and Spirit were the l1alnes but of different lTIodes, operations, or characters of the Deity; so that, perhaps, God Illight be called Father, when viewed as Creator and Governor; Son, ,vhen vie\ved as 11ec1eemer and Saviour; Spirit, when considered as Sanctifier and Teacher. Or perhaps we n1ight sn ppose, that the Son and the Spirit 'were mere attributes of, or influences fr0111 God; as, for instance, the Son, the Logos, 111ight be esteemed but as the Ileason of God, the Spirit as that Divine Influence, by which He teaches the nlinds, and sanctifies the hearts of His servants. IV. It is therefore necessary to show, that there is plain evidence from Scripture that the Father is not the Son, and that neither of them is the Holy Ghost: but that they are plainly distinguished froln one another, and distinguished too as Personal Agents, not merely as lTIodes, operations, or attributes. That there is SODle kind of distinction, nlust appear from the fact, that the three, Father, Son, and Spirit, are so frequently n1entioned together in the Sa!He sentence; especially in the forms of blessing and of baptisnl. (2 Cor. xiii. 14. 1\Iatt. xxviii. 19.) This alon Inight be sufficient to prove, that these three sacred naInes \vere not nanles lllerely of different characters assumed by God at various tinles; for it seems scarcely reasonable to suppose, that the Apostles prayed for blessing from three characters assunled by God, instead 1 It may be observed that, if this is true, then the doctrine of the lwrrwousion, the consubðtantiality of the Son and the Spirit is proved; for if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be but one God, the Son and the Spirit must be of one nature and substance with the Father. SEC. I1.J OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 49 of l )ra\inO" for blessinO" from the One God to wholn all such cha- o) ð ð racters belonged; nor yet can \ve well believe that they should invoke blessing frOln the attributes of God, or baptize converts, into a form of faith not in God alone, but in God, His attributes, and His influences. But, in order to establish more clearly the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinguished as personal Agents, it will be necessary to bring passages froln Scripture in \vhich they are represented to us as acting personal parts, and even in \vhich all three are represented as acting three distinct parts. I . The Father and the Son act distinct personal parts, and are therefore distinct Personal A gents. (I) The Father sends the Son; whereas no one can be said to send himself. John v. 36, 37; vi. 38,39. Actsiii. 20. Gal. iv. 4. I John iv. 9, &c. (2) The Son leaves the Father and returns to Him agaIn. John viii. 42 ; ix. 4; xii. 49 ; xvi. 5, 28 ; xvii. 3. I John iv. 14. (3) The Son offers Hin1self to the Father. Heb. ix. 14. (4) The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the :Father. John iii. 35; v. 20; xiv. 3 I; xv. 9; xvii. 24, 26. (5) The Son is said to nlake intercession with the Father. Heb. vii. 25. I John ii. I. Con1p. Heb. ix. 24. (6) The Son in His hun1an nature prays to the Father. Luke xxii. 42; xxiii. 34. John xvii. (7) The Father hears and speaks to the Son. John xi. 42. lIe b. v. 7. 1tlatt. iii. I 7; xvii. 5. Luke ix. 3 5. John xii. 28. 2. The Spirit acts distinct parts fronl either the Father or the Son. (I) The Father and the Son both send the Spirit. John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; xx. 22. Acts ii. 33. Gal. iv. 6. (2) The Spirit lnakes intercession with the Father, whereas no one can intercede with hilllself. ROln. viii. 26. (3) The Son offers Himself to the Father through the Eternal Spirit. Heb. ix. 14.. (4) Christ tells His disciples that He 111Ust go a\vay from then1, and that then the Holy Spirit should come in His place; that He would go to the Father; and fronl the Father send the Comforter. John xiv. 16, 26; xvi. 7. (5) Christ says, that the Holy Spirit should not speak of Himself, but should receive of Christ's, and show to the Church. John xvi. 13, 14, 15. 3. 'Ve not only have the names of the Father, the Son, and E 50 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [A.RT. I. the Spirit joined in blessing, and in the form of baptism, but we are told of a scene in \vhich they all three acted jointly, yet sepa- rate parts. At the baptism of Christ, the Son was in the ]\fan Christ Jesus baptized; the Spirit like a dove descended on Him; the :Father, out of Heaven, pronounced Him His beloved Son. All these facts put together sufficiently delnonstrate that there is a distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that a distinction of Personal Agents. Yet still, that we n1ay leave no room for objection, it may, perhaps, appear necessary to consider separately, and n10re at length, the Personality (i) of the Son, (ii) of the Spirit. (i) 1'he general tone of Scripture so clearly indicates that God the Son is a person, that, at first, it might appear that the Arian hypothesis, which makes the Son an inferior God to the Father, ,vas the only one which could be at all maintained on Scriptural grounds; except, of course, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. But as the Sabellian hypothesis is not without its advocates and its argun1ents, it deserves and requires to be considered. The view \vhich Sabellianism takes of the Son of God is, as has been said before, twofold. Some Sabellians considered God the Son as alto[Jethc1'> the saIne as God the Father, and as having 110 proper distinction from Him. These were, in the early ages, called Patripassiaus. Others again looked on God the Son as but an Emanat-ion from the Father, not as a Person distinct, in any sense, from Him. These ave been called Emanative Sabel- lians. Both forms have found advocates in SOlne degree in later times. Patripassianisll1 has been virtually held by SOlne divines, who, in the main orthodox, have endeavoured too boldly to lnake the doctrine of the Trinity square exactly \vith human reason and philosophy. The emanative theory has been adopted, more or less, by some, \vho are in fact Socinian<:;, to elude the force or explain the difficulty of such passages as John i. I. No\v against both these hypotheses, the marked distinction which our Lord makes bet\veen Himself and the Father must -be carefully noted. For example (John viii. 17, 18): 'It is written in your La\v that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of l\Iyself, and the Father that sent 1\1e beareth witness of Ie.' Here is a distinct appeal to two distinct wit- nesses. As the J e\vish Law required the evidence of t\VO men, so here the Lord Jesus appeals to the evidence first of Himself, secondly of His Father. Would this be much unlike equivocation, if the Father and the Son had no personal distinction? Again SEC. 11.J 01!' THE HOLY TRINITY. 51 ( John v. 17), our Lord says: ' Iy Father worketh hitherto, and I work.' And \vhen the Jews accused Him of blasphemy, for making God His Father, and so claiming equality with God, He does not deny the charge of making Himself equal with God, but still goes on to declare to them, that not,vithstanding His unity of nature with the Father, He, the Son, had a personal subordina- tion to Him. 'The Son can do nothing of IIÜnself but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likEïwise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sho\veth Him all things that HÌ111self doeth.' In this passage surely, where the Son claimed, as the Jews rightly interpreted HÍlll, to be the true Son of God, and so equal with God, He yet plainly set forth the doctrine, that in His Person, though not in IIis Nature, He was subordinate to the Father, receiving of the Father, and doing the same things as the Father doeth. And so He goes on, , As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whonl He "viII. For the Father j.udgeth no man, but hath comnlitted all judgment to the Son.' Again,' As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself: ' that is, 'the Father,' unlike any creature, is self-existent, having' life in Himself,' and so He hath given to the Son to be self-existent, and to 'have life in Himself,'- (language clearly spoken of tho eternal Son, not _ merely of the lan Christ J esus)-' And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also; because He is the Son of fan,' i.e., because He is not only the Son of God, but Son of l\Ian also, incarnate, and so the fitter agent to execute the wrath, as well as to show the nlercy, of God. But again, onr Lord goes on, '1 can of fine o\vn Self do nothing: as 1 hear, I judge: and Iy judgment is just; because I seek not Iine own \yill, but the ,vill of the }-'ather, \vhich hath sent :hIe.' 1 Again, in the forty-third verse, '1 am corne in :i\Iy Father's nan1e, and ye receive Ie not: if anothel' shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.' The whole of this passage is one a which onr Lord clearly spoke of Himself in His Divine nature, and of His relation to His Father in that nature, \vhich He had in common with Him; yet no language can more expressly 111ark a distinction of personal action and personal attribute. Again, some of the passages, which seem to have as their special object to set forth the glory of the Divine Being of the Son, 1 See John Y. 17-3 0 . E 2 5 OF THE HOLY TRIKITY. [ART. I. are so wordeL1 as especially to show IIis distinction of Person from the Father. Thus in Ooloss. i. I 5, 16, ,vhere creation and provi- dence are ascribed to HÜn in terll1S of peculiar grandeur, He is called 'the image of the Invisible God, the First Born of,' or 'Begotten before, every creature.' Here He is represented both as the IJna(je of the Father, and as having before all creation been lJegotten as Ilis Son,. both expressions n1arkedly denoting personal difference. The same thing is e' en more relllarkable in the beginning of the Epistle to the llebre'ws. It is plain from the language of the ,v hole of the first chapter that the subject is the Divine nature of the SOil. Yet nothing can be l110re clear than the distinction ,vhich is made between the Father and the Son. First of all, God is said to have spoken in old times by the pl"ophcts, but in the latter days, 'by His Son, whom He hath appointed IIeÚ of all things, by ,vhom also He made the ,vorlds. ,VLo being the brightness (the shining forth) of His glory, and the ea:p'J'ess Inlage of IIis Person, and upholding all things by the word of I-lis power, w.hen He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the r?jesty on High' (vv. I, 2, 3). No,v here God is said to have spoken by His Son, as He did by the prophets; He is said to have appointed Him heir of all things (both ll1arking distinc- tions of Person); then the Son is said to be 'the express IJJ1GfJC of the Person' of t.he Father. It nlay be a question what is meant by the word Ú7rÓa-TUa-LÇ, translated Pel'son; but there can be no question, that the ",.ord xapaKThp, translated express I1Jlage, means that the Ú7róa-Ta()lç of the Sun aí1SlCel S to thcä of the Fathe1 , as the i1J1P?'CS8ion on 'l{;(lX an.S'lIXrS to the seal 'which 1}1ClCZe the Únprcssion. "\Vhethee then v7róa-Taa-iç means 'Person.,' or whether it means , Jfodc of c cistcnce,' we learn that, as the Son is the shining forth of the Father's glory, so His Persall, or His Illode of being, cor- responds to tbat of the Father, (not only as a Son's to a Father's, but) as an Ïtnpression on ,vax to the engraving on a seal. This indeed teaches us clearly, that the Son is of one glory, and so of one eternal essence ,yith the Father; but as the in1age on the wax is distinct from that upon the seal, so ill ust there be a distinction between the Father and the Son, of ,vhich the distinction of the seal and the wax is a figure and similitude. The prayer of our Lord to His Father, in the seventeenth chapter of St. John, is another striking proof that the Son is indeed of one nature and substance but not of one Person with , the Father. No one can attentively study that prayer without SEC. II.J OF THE HOLY TRIXITY. 53 seeing that our Lord speaks of IIimself and His glory as the Eternal Son, not merely as the .:\Ian Christ Jesus; so that what- ever diversity we observe is not merely incident to our Lord.s incarnation, but is also characteristic of Him in His uncreateù nature. "\Vhen therefore he says (ver. I), , Father, glorify Thy Son, that rrhy Son also may glorify rrhee,' we nl Y inquire, ,vhat sense the passage could bear, if the Father and the Son were per- sonally identical? .L.tgain, the same question is suggested by the following: 'And now, 0 Father, glorify Thou le with Thine own self with the glory that I had with Thee before the ,vorld ,vas' (ver. 5). And' I have given unto them the words which Thou gayest 1\le. and they have received thenl, and have kno\vn surely that I came out fronl Thee, and they have believed that u u Thou didst send Ie' (ver. 8). .L\nd again, 'Thou lovedst Ie before the foundation of the ,vorld' (ver. 24). Does not all this necessarily proye that, before the world ,yas created, the Person of the Son was different from the Person of tbe Father? Perhaps the passage which most favours the Sabellian notions concerning the Person of the Son, iR the inlportant first chapter of St. John. That passage indeed distinctly asserts the Divinity of the Son; but language is used 'which may be supposed to mean that He is, as regards His Di\ ine nature, not to he distinguished fronl the Father, or at least to be distinguished only as an enlana- tion or attribute. Plato had used the terln .L\.ó')'o): but he did not probably intend to distinguish, by any personal distinction, the ...\ó')'o) from God. The early heretics had mixed np the philosophy of Plato ,vith the religion of Christ; and they used of the Son of God, the langunge which the Platonists had used of the j.\ó')'o). "\Vhen therefore St. John carrIe to use the same expression (adopted, as some think, on pnrpose to refute heretical teachers whilst using their own ternl), it n1Ïght he supposed that by the 1\ó70) he meant no more than the Thought or Reason of God, ,vhich, ,, hilst it remained in the bosom of God, ,yas the \ó70) ÈVðláÐETO), the inwaïyl Reason or Thought; when it was exerted to create the worlel or reveal the ,vill of God, it bec'ame the j.\óyo) 7rpOcþOplK ), or, as it were, the outu;{lrd Speech of God. This view of the passage may seem supported by the eighth chapter of Proverbs; where the \Visdom of God is spoken of in terms so like St. John's language concerning the Logos, that the fathers, and many after them, have considered that Solomon must there have been writing of Christ. If this be the meaning of the Logos in St. John, we may paraphrase his words SOITIeW hat as 54: OF THE HOLY TRI ITY. [A.RT. I. follows. In the beginning ,vas the Reason or 'Visdom of God. That Wisdolll 'was in God, nay, it was God (for as God is Love, so God is vVisdom). ..:\.11 things were nlade by the Reason or "Tisdolll of God, and without it was nothing made that was made. . . . . It was the true light, that ligbteth every nlan coming into the \vorld. . . . . And this '\"Visdom was incarnate or nlani- fested in Christ, and so dwelt among us. I have endeavoured to put this argunlent in its strongest form, that I nlay give it all the weight "hich it deserves. I proceed to show \vh rein it is defective and unsound. In the first place, the later I>latonists, and still nlore the l'latonizing and Gnostic heretics, had a notion of the Logos yery different from Plato's and far more personal. Again, the Gnostics, against \vhose opinions in a11 probability St. John directs nlany of his statements, considered the Pleroma or fulness of God to be Inade np of many Æons or Elnanations from God, to which they gave the yarious nanles of N OUS, Sophia, Dynan1Ïs, &c. The chief of these ,vas the Logos, whom they believed to have descended on the man Jesus. It is probable that, in the first chapter of his Gospel, St. J obn uses the narne of other .JEons besides the Logos. 'or exall1pIe, whereas he first calls the Son of God the Logos, he also tells us, that in Hinl ,vas 7;oe (life), and the Zoe was the Phos (light): by which he has been supposed to nlean, that the Logos, the Zoe, the Phos, \vere not different .LEons, but that, as St. I.)aul infornled the Colossians (ii. 9), the whole Pleron1a of Godhead dwelt in Christ, bodily. Again, St. JolIn tells llS that by the Logos, ,vho is also the Phos and the Zoe, the ,,,,orld ,vas created. The Gnostics taught that the ,vorld \vas created by a fallen Æon, \vho was an enemy to God, and that the Logos can1e do\vn to destroy his dominion anlong men. But St. John teaches that the Logos was Himself the Creator of the Universe, and that without Him nothing ,vas made that ,vas nlade. Once 1110re he explains (ver. 14) that the Logos \Y3S really made flesh and dwelt among us. 'fhe Gnostics did not believe the Logos to be really maq.e flesh; but they supposed, either that He only assun1ed the ap- pearance of hUlnanity, or that He descended, for a time, on the man Jesus, and then left him at his crucifixion. Therefore St. John uses the strong expression Ó .J..\óì'oç a-àp f:ì'lVETO, 'The 'V ord 'loas made flesh.' Lastl T, he says, that' we beheld His glory, the glory as of the fi[onogenes (the Only-begotten) of the Father, full of grace and truth.' jJlonogenes (Only-begotten) was the name of another Æon in the Gnostic Pleroma; St. John therefore adds to SEC. II. ] O:F THE HOLY TRINITY. 55 the other titles of the Son this tit.1e of .JIonogenes, to show still further that the Lord Jesus, the Son of the Father, combined in His own Person all the attributes ,vhich the Gnostics assigned to these various JEons, and was therefore not simply a single emana- tion from God, but, as St. Paul says, had in Him a fulness of Deity, and was moreover the Creator of the Universe, al1d not, as the Gnostics had it, one who was sent to overtbro\v the power of the Creator. Now, if this be the true explanation of St. John's language, it is vastly unlike the language assigned to hÏ1n by the Sabellian hypothesis. For \vhilst St.. John is ascribing to the Son supreme Divinity, he does so in a manner which essentially inlplies Per- sonality too. But there are many other reasons why the word Logos in the first chapter of St. John must be interpreted of a Person, not of an attribute or quality, like Reason or 'Visdom. (I) The Word is said to be God. It is not said that the 'V ord is eÚoÇ, dircine, but e òÇ, God. N O\V it may be possibìe improperly to say 'God is 'Visc10111,' as the Apostle says, 'God is love.' But we cannot sa)"', 'God's wisdom is God,' any lnore than ')Jan's wisdom or reason is nlan.' ( 2 ) The "r ord is said to be 'with God,' not in God: which implies Personality. God's 'wisdo'ln is in IIi!?, not, properly speaking, with Him. (3) In ver. 1 I, the 'Vord is said to have C come to His own;' lneaning, no doubt, His own creatures; which again is personal. (4) In verse 14 He is called the l\lovoì' vhç, the Only-begotten. But the idea of Sonship is personal. 'Ve cannot conceive of the Son of God, but as one in some personal sense distinct from Him: just as the term son amongst men indicates one distinct from his father. And no doubt as the term Logos is used to indicate that tJ1e Son from all eternity d\velt in the bosom of the Father, as the reason or wisdom d\vells in the bosom of one endowed \vith such faculties; so the word Son is used to indicate to our finite under- standings that, notwithstanding such an intimate union, yet there is a distinction, such, in some degree, as the distinction of father and son. (s) He is said to have been' made flesh, and to have d\velt alnong us ;' and that, in opposition to the fancy of the Gnostics or Docetæ, that the Christ or Logos only took a plzantastic body. Accordingly, in Rev. xix. 13, St. John sees a vision of a Person, who is evidently Jesus Christ, and whose name, written on His thigh, 56 OF THE HOLY TRIKITY. [A.RT. 1. is I ing of kings, and Lord of lords; and he tells us that this PeIrson is called' The \V ord of God.' (6) In the eighth verse, John the Baptist is contrasted with Him, and declared not to be the Light or the Logos. Now John the Baptist was undoubtedly a person. vVe must therefore con- clude that lIe, "with whom he is contrasted, and of 'vhom the Evangelist had been speaking before, 'vas a Person also. 1-'hus I trust we Il1ay conclude, that the testimony borne by St. J ohu, in the first chapter of his Gospel, is a testimony to the doctrine of the distinct personality of the Son, not to Sabellianism. 1 .And with this we 111ay venture to leave the question of the Per- sonality of God the Son. (ii) 'Ve have next to sho\v the Personality of the Spirit of God. Now, as \ve are baptized' in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; , as the Apostles bless in the name of Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost; and as on n1any occasions the Holy Spirit is joined with the Father and the Son; we cannot but think it probable, at least, that as the Father is a Person, and the Son has just been sho\vn to be a Person distinct from the Father, so the Holy Ghost is a Person also distinct from either of thenl. nut beyond this, we find distinctly that, in Holy Scripture, personal actions are ascribed to the Holy Ghost. (I) He makes intercession with God the Father. Rom. viii. 26. N o\v to make intercession is a personal act. (2) He testifies. John xv. 26. (3) He teaches. John xiv. 26. ( 4) He hears and speaks. John xvi. I 3. (5) He gives spiritual gifts, dividing then1 according to His will. I Cor. xii. 8, I I. (6) He inhabits a temple. I Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19. This is the act of a Person, not of an attriLute or influence. (7) He not only is represented as speaking generally, but we have speeches set do\vn in Scripture \vhich the Holy Spirit is sa d to have uttered to particular persons, e.g., .Acts x. 19, 20: 'The Spirit said unto Peter, Behold, three lllen seek thee. . . . I have sent them.' Acts xiii. 2: 'The Holy Spirit said, Separate 1\le Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them.' (8) He is put in direct opposition to evil spirits, who are doubtless persons. I Sam. xvi. 14. 2 Chron. xviii. 20, 2 I . 1 On this subject see 'VaterIand's first Sermon at Lady ::\Ioyer's Lecture, on John i. I, VoL II. p. I. SEC. 1r.J OF THE HOLY TRIXITY. 57 It has, ho,vever, been argued that these and several personal actions, when ascribed to the Spirit, are the actions of the Father, ,vho, when He does them Himself, is said to do them by His Spirit. It answer to this, it can plainly be shown, that there are Inany personal actions ascribed to the Spirit which cannot be ascribed to the Father. For instance, in Ron1. viii. 26, as \ve have j llst seen, the Spirit intercedes with the Father for the saints. But it cannot be said that the Father intercedes with Himself. Here then we have an instance of the performance of a personal action by the Spirit which cannot be performed br the Father. Again, Christ is said to send the Spirit (John x\Ti. 7): but it is never said of God the Father that He is sent; He sends both the Son and the Spirit, but is never sent Himself. l\Ioreover (in John X\T. 26), our Lord proll1Ìses ( to send the Spirit from the Father.' If the Spirit means here the Father, then Christ must send the Father from the Father. 1 Again (in chapter xvi. 13, 14) ,vhen our Lord promises to send the Paraclete, He says, that 'He,' the }:)araclete, ' shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak.' 'He shall glorify :ßIe; for He shall receive of !Iine, and shall sho,v it unto ) ou.' Now it certainly cannot be said of God the Father (from whom eternally both Son and Spirit are derived), that He should not speak of Himself, but should speak of ,,,,hat He heard only. Nothing which in1plies snb01'clination is ever spoken of God the Father. "\Ve conclude, therefore, that the Spirit (who is here represented as acting per- sonal parts, and parts which cannot belong to the Person of the Father) is both a Person, and a Person distinct from the Father. The fact, that the Spirit is called Paraclete, ,vhich means either Co Jnforter, or more probably, Adz:ocate,2 seems to in1ply distinct personality. The use of the masculine pronoun He, ÈKElI10Ç, to designate the Holy Ghost, surely indicates that reference is n1ade to a per- sonal Agent, not to an influence or attribute. This is observable especially in John xvi. 13, .where we have an immediate connexion, "Vhen He the Spirit of 'rruth is come,' ÈKElVOÇ, TÒ IIvEûp.a ,qç àÀ1]eElaç, a masculine pronoun, ,vhilst TÒ IIvEûp.a is neuter. 3 From these, then, and similar reasons, we conclude that the Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son. Thus we have reached the conclusion of our reasonino- on the ð 1 See Hey, V 01. II. p. 443. 2 See Pearson, On the Creed, Ârt. VIII. p. 3 2 9, Note, fol.; and Suicer, s. v. napá.K^7}TO . 3 The Personality of the Holy Ghost is full)' and admirably tJ'eated by Bp. Pearson, Art. VIII. p. 308, fo!' 58 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [A.RT. I. subject of Personality, and so we believe our Fourth Proposition to be established: that although the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are but one God, yet are they clearly distinguished from One another, and distinguished as Personal Agents. N o'v this is the doptrine of the Trinity in Unity, as held by the Catholic Fathers, expressed in the Cre"eds of the Church, and exhibited in this first Article of the Reformed Church of England, viz., that' There is but one God,' yet that 'in the Unity of that Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy G.host.' This conclusion \ve deduce from the statements of Scripture. vVe do not pretend to explain the mystery, for it is, of course, above the reach of finite understanding. Yet, \ve cannot doubt that, in the substance of it at least, our conclusion is legitin1ate. To explain the subject philosophically \vould be inconsistent with the purpose in hand, inconsistent with the assertion that it is a 1nystery (that is, a thing which hurnan reason cannot fathom), and therefore impossible. It may not even be altogether possible to mark out accurately the exact distinctions between Tritheism and Trinitarianism on the one hand, between Trinitarianism and Sabel- lianisnl on the other hand. This, by the ,yay, should make us not less earnest to maintain the truth, nay! the more earnest, because of the greater danger of error; but yet the more tender, the more ready in meekness to instruct those who, from the difficulty of ap- prehending, have been led to doubt this great article of the faith. But, tbough all this is true, yet, thoughtfully considered, this doctrine of the Trinity, though above our understanding, does not necessarily appear contrary to our reason. That rea.son n1ay well teach us, that it is likely God should subsist in a manner above w hat we can apprehend. That reason may teach us that, though God's nature is infinite, and therefore cannot be multiplied; yet, seeing that He has sho,vn Himself to be essentially loving, and loving to have partakers of His lo\'"e, it is not impo'3sible, that there might exist, even in the Divine Essenèe, something like. a Personal diversity, that so He, ,vho, as regards the creature, d\vells in light which is unapproachable, might have within Himself that ,vhich would be capable of receiving and imparting the love, which can be perfect in God alone. Yet such a diversity existing in the Godhead, which from its very perfection can admit neither multi- plication nor division, could not constitute a distinction of Deity, though it would constitute ,vhat, in the language of Theology, has been called a distinct Personality. SEC. I1.J OF THE HOLY TRI ITY. 59 The Fathers, who used the language which has been inserted in the Creeds and generally adopted in the Church, neyer thought, w hen they used to speak of three Persons in one God, of speaking of such three persons, as they would speak of pC1.sons and pC1'son- ality among created beings. They did not consider, for example, the Persons of the Father and the Son, as they \vol1ld have done the persons of Abraham and Isaac-the Persons of the I-Ioly Trinity, as they ,"\ould have done the persons of Peter, Paul, and John, which are separate from one another, and do not in any way depend on each other for their essence. They held that the Father is the Head and Fountain of Deity (II'/7 8EÓT1/TOS'), frolll whom the Son and Holy Spirit are from all eternity derived, but so derived as not to be divided from the Father, but they are in the Father and the Father in them, by a certain 7íEplXWP'1(jl or inhabitation. So then, though they ackno\vledged the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be really three Persons, yet they held 'them to have no divided or separate existence, as three different men have, but to be intimately united and conjoined one to another, and to exist in each other, and by the said ineffable 7iEPlxwP'la-.lS' or inhabitation to peryade or permeate one another.' 1 I Bull, Posth. n Ol'ks, p. 1004, quoted by 'Vaterland, U"01.ks, Vol. II. p. 211. Patrern, FiJium et Spiritum Sanctum, cum revera tres sint Personæ, nf>quaqnam tamen ut tres homines seorsum et epa- ratim existere, spd intiUle sibi invicem cohærere et conjunctos esse; adeoque alterum in altero existere, at'lne, ut ita loqnar, immeare invicem et penetrare per ineffabilem quandáUl 7rfpLXWpl}CTLV, quam rirc1l'minsessionon chola tici vocant.- Bull, I lei. Fid. l\ïc. 1 I. 9, 23; Jrorks. V 01. IV. p. 363 ; Sf'e al o 4, Lib. IV. ; also Pearson, On the Cl.eed, Art. II. p. 13 8 , foJ. On the meaning of the word Pel'son, f'ee "Taterland, Jrork , Vol. III. p. 33 8 . The term by which to designate what we can Po'snn was ea.rly a subject of dispute. The Greeks mostly used the word v7rócJ'TacJ'LS, the Latins Persona. Yet among the Greeks it wa!=: not uni- formly agreed to speak of TpfÎs'T7roUTáufLS and J1.la OvuLa. Some, on the contrary. identified V7rÓUTauL<; with ovuLa, anù spoke of p.la ''fTrÓUTauL<;. These differ- ences in language led to the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, at which Athana- sius was present, and at which this ÀO)'o- p.axia was condemned. See Atha\lasil1 , Dial. II. Torn. II. p. 159; Suicer, s. v. V7rÓUTaULS. and Kew- man's Hist. of A1'ians, ch. v. 2. AR rIOLE II. Of the Trord or Son of God, 'which 'It.'as 'llwde 'e'J'Y ./..llan. THE Son, which is the 'Vordof the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one sub- stance with the Jfather, took :\Ian's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and l\Ianhoùd, were joined together in one Person, neyer to be divided, whereof is (lne Christ vpry God and very :\Ian; \\'ho truly suffered, was crncifiell, dead, and buried, to reconcile His }'ather to ns, and to be a ::;acrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sills of n en. De rerbo. sire Filio Dei, qui 'crus lWTlW filctus cst. FILlL"S, qui est V erlmm Patris, ab æterno a Patre geuitus, verus et æternus Deus ac Patri con:mb:;tantiali:;;, in utero beatæ Virgini8, ex iIliu::; substantia., naturam hUlUanam assumpsit: ita nt duæ naturæ, dh'ina et humana, integre atque perfecte in unitate personæ fuerint inseparabiliter coujunctæ: eÀ qui bus est unus Chrititus, verus Deu , et verus homo, qui \"ere pas- sus est, crucifix us, mortuus, et sepultus, ut Patrem nobis reccnciliaret, e:;setque hostia, nou tantulll pro culpa originis, verum etiarn pro omnibus actualibus ho- minum peccatis. SECTIOX I.-HISTOIlY. . THIS Article evidently treats of three distinct points. I. The Divine nature of the Son of God; II. His incarnation; III. His sufferings, sacrifice, and propitiation. I. First, as regards the Divine nature of the Son of God: as it was sho,vn under the first Article, that lIe ,vas of one substance and co-eternal \vith the Father, so the history of the different opinions concerning His consu bstantiality and co-eternity formed part of the history of that Article. It is not necessary to repeat either those arguments or that history here. I shan consider that I Lave said enough concerning the Divine nature of our blessed Lord, ,vhen, in addition to His consubstan- tiality and co-eternity before treated of, I have spoken concerning His generation from the Father, whereby He is the Begotten or Only-begotten Son of God. It has already been shown that the Arians and Eunomians held, that the Son might be called P.OllO'YEllhç, not as being the only-begotten of the Father by a true and proper generation, but as having been begotten or created by the Father alone; 1 and the I Ol ApfÍaJlOL fì'OVo-LJI, ön P.OJlO)'fJl1]S I aurou. Theoph. in Joh. cap. III. See ^f)'fraL, óL6n u.vròs P.ÓJlOS )'É-YOJlf Kaì Pearson, On the Greed, p. 138; Suicer, ÈKrio-01J lJ7rÒ 8fOÛ, rà ó' lL\.XC1. 7ráVTC1. tl7r' II. p. 375. SEC. I.] OF THE SOX OF GOD. 61 Socinians have endeavoured to explain the word, as though it meant no more than beloved, as Isaac was called the only son of A brahan1, though Ishmael ,vas his son also. It is hardly necessary to observe, that the orthodox fathers held, that the Son was begotten of the Father from all eternity, so before all time deriving His Divine Essence from His Father (jJ.óvo ÈK jJ.óvou ryeylVVJ1T(U TOÛ IIaTpó , Cyril. Alexandr. iJ Act. Concil. Eplws.). This eternal generation they held to be a proof that He was of one substance and eternity with the Father; but the relation of Father to Son they held to constitute a priority of o1'"de'r, though not of natuTe or pou.e1\ They held, that is, not that the Son was, in His nature as God, in any degree different from, 01' inferior to, the Father; but that, as the Father alone was the source and fountain ( 7ïJ lryh, àpxh, at'Tla) of Deity, the Son having been begotten, and the Spirit proceeding; so there was a subordination, without diversity, of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. l It may l)e difficult to conceive of priority of order, without being led to believe in superiority of nature. This seen1S to have been the cause why Dr. Clarke and other high Arians, perceiving the truth of the doctrine that there was a certain priority of order llTIong the Persons of the undivided 'frinity, and unable to distinguish between priority of order and superiority of nature, \vere led into an assertion of the heretical doctrine of the inferiority of the nature of the Son. II. The second part of the Article contains the doctrine of the Incarnation. Errors upon this doctrine were held by the Gnostics, or Docetæ, and the :i\Ianichees, who taught that our Lord's body was but a phantom, and that He Cal118 not in the flesh, but in appearance only (OVK fV (japKI, àXXà dOK1í(jEL); by those heretics, who denied the Divinity of our Lord, and therefore, of course, the union of the two natures in one Person; and in short by all the Oriental and Judaizing sects. But the most important contro- versies on this mystery arose from the errors of, I. the Arians and Apollinarians, 2. the K estorians, 3. the Eutychians, 4. the )'Ionotheli te5. I. Arius taught that the Son of God did not take human 1 The statements of the Ante-: lcene fathers on this subject are fully inyestigated hy Bp. Bull, Po D. Sect. IV. De Subordinatione Filii. See also Suicer, s. vv. alTla. àpXÌJ, 7r1]yry. G2 OF THE SOX OF GOD. [Ål{T. II. nature, but a human bcdy only, and that the Divine Word ,vas in the place of the soul. l Apollinaris, who lIlaintained against Arius the consubstantiality of the Son, agreed with him in a great measure concerning the 11lode of His incarnation, teaching that anI' Lord took a human body and a sensitive or anirrnal soul, but that the place of the Tational soul ,vas supplied by God the Word, thus <.1istinguishing, according to a comnlon notion of those times, between the l/ovi) or VIens, and the tuxh or anÍ1na. 2 2. The N estorian controversy arose as follows. The Greek fathers, justly esteeming that our Lord, from the TIl0ment that He ,vas conceived in the ,vonlb of His mother, was not only man but God also, and nlaintaining that the union between His two natures ,vas so perfect that it ,vas right for example to say' God suffered,' ,vent so far as to call the Virgin 1tlary by the title 8EOTÓKOS', or Deipara. Nestorius declainled strongly against this title, as indi- cating, according to his view of the subject, that God was liable to change, "'hereas God can neither be born nor die. He held that the JIan Christ J-esus only could derive His birth from His earthly parent; and that therefore the '''''-irgin might be called XPL(J"TOTÓKOS' but not 8fOTÓKOi). These statenlents were considered to involve a denial of the union of the two natures of God and man in the one l)erson of Christ. 3 N estorius was r ccused of teaching that there ,vere not only two natures, but two persons in Christ- viz., the Person of G-od the Son, and the Person of tbe man Christ Jesus. -"or this doctrine (though he appears to haye denied the inferences drawn from his statements) he ,vas condemned in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 43 I, Slll11mOned by Theodosius the younger, and at ,vhich Cyril of Alexandria presided. This Conncil determined that the true doctritle ,vas, that ' Christ was but one Person, in wholll t,vo natures are intimately united b'lt not confounded. 4 The tenets of the N estorians, however, spread rapidly and widely in the East. They ,vere enlbraced by the school of Edessa, 1 See Pearson, On the Greed, p. 160. In eo autem quod Christunl sine anima solam carnem sU8cepisse arbitrantur mi- nus noti Bunt. . . . sed hoc verum esse et Epiphanius non tacuit. et ego ex eorum qnibusdam scriptis et collocutionibus cer- tissime conlperi.-Augu:::tin. IIæres. 49, Tom. VIII. p. 18. :l Pearson, aR above. l\Iosheim, Cent. ]v. Pt. II. ch. v. . 17. Neander, O. 11. Vol. IV. pp. 98-106. Apollinaristas Apollinaris instituit, qui de anima Christi a Catholicis dis8enserunt, dicentes, sicut .Ariani, Deum Chri:,;tl1m carnem sine anima suscepisse. In qua quæ5tione tes- timoniis Evangelicis victi, mentem, qua rationalis est anima hominis, defuisse animæ Chri5ti, sed pro hac ipsum Verbum in eo fuisse dixerunt.-Augustin. Hæl.CS. 55, Tom. VIII. p. 19. 3 The technical term for this union was the ËVWCH!t Ka{J' V7rÓUTauLv-Hypo- static union. 4 Neander, Vol. IY. pp. 123-152. SEC. 1. ] OF THE SOX OF GOD. G3 were eagerly propagated by Barsumas, ,vho became bishop of Nisibis in 435 ,and by his influence took such root in Persia, that a N estorian Patriarch was established at Seleucia, to "hose authority, even to modern times, the Nestorian churches ha\"e been subjected. Nes- torianism took deep root in nlan y soils, and the N estorians proved themselves zealous missionaries. Their opinions spread rapidly into A.rmenia, Chaldea, Syria, Arabia, and India.! They afterwards extended the Christian faith among the 'l'artar tribes of Scythia; and, in the thirteenth century, established their bishops and clergy even aUlong the Chinese. In the eighth century, the sect called Adoptionists revived unconsciously a forn1 of Nestorianism in Spain. 2 And, in the twelfth century, the N on1Ínalists were accused of Nestorianism, as well as Tritheism, by their ac1versaries. 3 3. Eutyches, an abbot at Constantinople, frol11 opposition to Nestorianism, was led into the other extreme. He asserted that the Divine and hUlnan natures of Christ 'were originally distinct, but that, after their union, they became but one nature, the hUn13.11 nature being transubstantiated into the Divine. Before the hypo- static union he acknowledged t,vo natures, but after that union he acknowledged but one. The Council of Chalcedon, which was sum- moned by )Iarcian in 45 I, and is reckoned the fourth general Council, condemned Eutycbes, and declared the Catholic doctrine to be, that 'In Christ t,vo distinct natures nre united in one Person, without any change, mixture, or confusion.' 4 The Eutychian, or :JIonophysite doctrine; notwithstanding thi conden1nation, rapidly gained ground, principally through the zeal of Jacob Baradæus, Bishop of Edessa, from \vhom the sect of the Eutychíans are called J acobites. It ,vas established in Syria, lesopotamia, Armenia, EgJ pt, Abyssinia. The Eutychians became united under the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, and so continue to this day. They are no\v divided into three principal societies: tbe Oriental )Ionophysites, subject to the Patriarch of Antioch; the African lonophysites, subject to the l)atriarch of Alexandria, embracing the Copts and t\.byssinians; and thirdly, the Armenians, ,vho, though agreeing with the other Ionophys.ites con- cerning the natures of Christ, are not united with them in other pointb of faith and discipline, and are subject to Patriarchs of their 0,vn. 5 1 Suieer, s. vv. ÐfOT6KOS and XpLCrTo- TÓKO<;. Pearson, On the Creed, pp. 178, 163. losheim, Cent. v. Pt. II. eh. Y. Neander, G. 11. Vol. IV. Pl'. 269-271. 2 Neander, Vol. v. pp. 216, seq. 3 See p. 27, Note I. 4 Suiet-'r, s. vv. åKhþa.",^OL. Pearson, p. 162. l\Iosheim, Cent. v. Pt. II. eh. v. Neander, Vol. IV. PP. 203-231. 6 losheim, Cent. IV. Pt, II. eh. v. Cent. XVI. 3, Pt. I. Neander, IV. 271 -278. 64 OF THE SOX OF GOD. [AnT. II. 4. In the seventh century a new controversy on this impor- tant subject arose, and a more subtle question was mooted. This question was, whether in Christ there ,vere two distinct 'wills, the Divine and the hUlnan, or but one, the Divine. Those ,vho adopted the opinion that there 'vas but one ,vill in Christ, among ,vholn was Honorius, Bishop of Ronle, ,vere called Ionothelites, l\lovo- efÀÎJTal, and ,vere condemned in 680 by the sixth general Council, the third Constantinopolitan. Their doctrine 'vas supposed to border too closely on that of the ::\Ionophysites. It appears, ho,vever, that they entirely disclaimed fonophysite errors; and from the aln higuous nlanner in ,vhich their views were expressed, it has been questioned whether they held that the hl1nlan will in Christ ,vas ,vholly swallowed up in the Divine will, or only that it was so completely subservient to the Divine will, as always to nlove in unison with it. l III. A.s to the third division of this Article, the terms of it probably had reference to the error of the Docetæ, ,vbo denied that our Lord 'truly' suffered, teaching either that He suffered only in appearance, or, as Basilides would have it, that Silnon the Cyrenian was crucified in His place. Of course, it may be added, that the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is necessarily denied by all humanitarian heretics, and others ,vho nearly symbolize ,vith theIne The S\vedenborgians also of late times, though in SOl11e sense admitting the Atonement, appear to deny anything of the nature of a vicarious sacrifice, tnaintaining that redemption consists in tbe subduing of the po,vers of evil within the Christian, by virtue of union ,vith the Redeemer in His human nature. SECTIO II.-SCRIPTUR.A.L PROOF. I. T HE division of the subjects treated of in this Article, ,vhich has been suggested above, leads us to consider in the first place the eternal generation of the Son of God. That the nature and being of the Son were from all eternity, and that He ,vas of one substance ,vith the Father, having been sho,,"n in the First Article, it is only necessary to prove here, that 1 )Iosheim, Cent. YII. Pt. II. ch. v. SEC. I1.J OF THE SOX OF GOD. 65 that nature, though eternal, is yet derived froln the Father, in such a manner, that the relationship of the Father to the Son is best expressed to our understandings by the term, and under the notion of generation. In order to represent to us the mode of existence of tbe Second Person in the Trinity, and His relation to the First, Holy Scripture has used various terms, drawn from human relations. rrhe 1110st comn10n and in1portant are the terms ' Word' and' Son.' rrhe term' 'V ord,' or 'Logos,' is probably used to exbibit the inti- Inate connexion of the one Person with tbe other; that, as reason J wells in man, so the Logos d we11s in God, and that, as the word goeth forth from tbe heart and lips of man, so the 'V ord is sent forth from God the Father. In like n1anner, ,ve must conceive the tern1 'Son' to indicate something definite concerning the relation of the Son to the Father; the variety of terms being adopted, probably because no one term could sufficiently convey to our understanding just notions of the nature and of the connexion of the Persons in the Godhead. "hat God the Son is l10t the san1e Person ".ith God the :Father has already been shown. That He is called the ' Word' and the ' Son' of tbe Father, seems sufficiently to declare, that He derives in some lllanner His Being from the Father, even as the ,vord springs froln him who thinks ana speaks, as the son is derived from him who begets hiln. This is further evident from express staten1ents in Holy. Scriptnre. For example, our Lord is distinctly said to be begotten of the Father. He is caned the Begotten and' Only-begotten of the Father,' John i. 14. The Psalmist, as eXplained by St. Paul, tells us, that G-od said to our Saviour, 'Thou art 1\ly Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' Ps. ii. 7. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 5. .L\nd so He is spoken of, as having been 'begotten before every creatu reo ' (1 r PWTÓTOKOS' 7ïú.cn]S' KTI(jEwS', Col. i. I 5.) In correspondence with this notio!l of Sonship, our Lord is constantly called' Heir of Bll things,' and said to be Possessor of all things, by right of Sonship. (See Heb. i. 2, 3, 4; iii. 6. John xvi. 15.) Again, our Lord speaks of Himself, as deriving His own eternal Being from God the Father. l 'r\S the living Father hath sent 1\1e, and I live by the Father' ( John vi. 57), and I In .John v. 18, our Lord Bpeaks of I pare .John vi, 4 6 , ó t:Jv 'Trapà TOÛ 8EOÛ, (jod as His true and prnpCl' }'atht>r, åÀÀà He that hath His b ing from Gud. Ka.ì 'TraTfpa (OLOV ÀE'ì'E TÒ" 8EÒV, Com- ., 66 OF THE SON OF GOD. [ART. II. again, 'As the Father bath life in Himself: so hath He given to tbe Son to have life in Himself' (John v. 26). From which we learn, that the mode of existence, .W hich the Father possessed from all eternity, lIe communicated to the Son. All created beings have their existence from, and their life in, G-od. But the Son, who is uncreated, derives indeed His being from the Father; but it is a Being of the same kind as the Father's, and therefore not de- pendent, like a creature's, but independent, self-existent, having life in itself. Accordingly the Son is further called 'the Brightness of His Father.s glory, the express Image of His Person,' Heb. i. 3; ,vords ,vhich in the Greek indicate a relation of the Son to His 1!-'atber, like that of brightness to light, like that of the impression of a seal on 'vax to-the seal, to ,vhich it answers. l No\v the comnlunication of the nature of God, thus made by the "'ather to the Son, may be called a proper generation. Nay! it is more proper than any earthly generation. For, in human generation, the son indeed derives his nature from his father, but it is in a manner according with the imperfection of humanity. l\Ian's generation is in time, and, as connected \vith that \vhich is material, results, in part at least, from that property of matter called divisibility. The son too, in human beings, \vhen deriveù from the father, becomes separate from him. But this is not so with God. God's eternal perfections He, froln all eternity, communicated to His Son. 'So also the Divine Essence, being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division, and in respect of its infinity incapab1e of multiplication, is so com- municated as not to be multiplied, insomuch that He, ,vhich pro- ceedeth by that communication, hath not only the saIne nature, but is also the same God. rrhe Father God, and the 'V ord God; Abraham man, and Isaac man; but Abraham one man, Isaac another man; not EO the Father one God, and the Word another; but the Father and the "'\V ord both the same God. Being then the propriety of generation is founded in the essential similitude of the son unto the father, by reason of the same ,vhich he receiveth from him; being the full, perfect nature of God is communicated unto the VV ord, and that more intimately, and \vith a greater unity or identity than can be found in human generation; it follo\veth, 1 Origen, commenting on these words of the Apostle, Splendor cst gloriæ Dei, says: Deus lux cst, secundum J oannem, sp'lendor ergo hujus Lucis est U nigenitus Filius, ex ipso inseparabiliter velut splen- dor ex Iuce procedens, et illuminans uni- versam creaturam.-De Principiis, Lib. I. eb. II. 11. 7. SEC. 1r.J OE THL vN OF GOD. (;7 that this communication of the J)ivine nature is the proper genera- tion, by ,vhich Christ is, and is called the true and proper Son of God.' 1 This peculiar relation of the Father to the Son is that which has authorized the Church, while she confesses an equality of nature, to admit also a priority of order in the Persons of the Trinity. The Father hath this pre-en1inence, that He is not only uncreated, but unbegotten too. He derives His essence froll1 none, being Himself the Fountain of life and the Source of being. rfhe Son too is uncreateà, deriving His being, not by creation but by generation, from the Father. Yet in this He is subordinate to the Father; not that His attributes are lower, or His nature inferior, but that both are derived. The Father begat; the Son is begotten. The Father is Life, Christ too is Life; but He con- fesses that He has life from the Father (John vii. 29), and that 'He liveth by the Father' (John vi. 5 ï). 'The Father hath life in Hinlself:' so too has the S011. But the Father not only in Hitnself, but from Hin1self. The Son in Him elf, but from the Father ( J ohn v. 26).2 On this account, therefore, and in this sense, ' the Father is greater than the Son' (J obn xiv. 28); greater as regards priority of order, not greater as regards infinity of nature. 3 II. The second part of the ....\.rticle concerns the true doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God. It is thus expressed: 'The Son . . . . took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and nlanhood, were joined together in one Person, neyer to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and , very nlan. I. The ,vorùing of this is very important. The Son of God took nlan's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin.' It appears directly from Holy Scripture, tl]at the Being conceived by the 1 Pearson, On tlle Creed, Art. II. p. 138, foJ. So Hooker, Eccl. Pol. Bk. v ch. LIV.2. 'By the gift of eternal gene- ration, Christ hath received of the Father one and in number the self-same substance, which the Father hath of Himself unre- cei \'ed from any other. }'or every." be- ginning" (Eph. iii. 15) isa father unto that which cometh of it, and every <t hath common unto Him with His heavenly Father, the same of necessity must be gi ven Him, but naturally and eternally given; not be,.;towed by way of benevolencp anù fa \'our. as the other gifts' (i.e.., those of union antI of unction) 'both are. ' 2 Pater est vita in Sellletipso, non a Filio: Filius vita ill Semetipso, sed a Patre.-Augustin. in. Johann. Tract. XIX. Tom. III. par. II. p. 443. 3 See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. I. p. 34; Bull. F. D. 4. F 2 G8 OF THE SON OF GOD. [ART. II. "\Tirgin ,vas, from the n10n1ent of His conception, the Son of God (Luke i. 35, 43. latt. Í. 20, 23). Had the hurnan nature of our Lord been conceived in the ,vomb of the "\Tirgin, and then united to the Divine nature, it is clear that Christ would have consisted of two distinct persons; one person, the Son of God, the other person, that human being w'ho had been conceived of the Virgin l\Iary. :For if a hu man being had been first conceived of the Virgin, and then united to God, it is clear that that human being Inust have been a human person, previously to the union ,vith the Divine Person; and so the incarnation ,vonld have been the union of two persons, not the union of two natures. l It ,vas from want of attention to this that N estorius ,vas led into error. He denied that the Person, 'who was born ()f the "\Tirgin, ,vas God, and said that He was on1y lnan. Hence he was obliged to divide Christ into two persons. ' If,' says Hooker, 'the Son of God had taken to Himself a man no,v made and already perfected, it would of necessity follow that there are in Christ two persons, the one assuming, the other assumed: whereas the Son of God did not assun1e a man's person to His own, but a ulan's nature to His own J)erson: and therefore took senlen, the seed of Abraham, the very first original elelnent of our nature, before it was come to have any personal hunlan subsistence. The flesh, and the conjunction of the flesh with God, began both at one instant; His making and taking to Him our flesh ,vas but one act; so that in Christ there is no personal subsistence but one, and that froln everlasting. By taking only the nature of man, He still continueth one Person, find changetb but the manner of His subsisting, which ,vas before in the mere glory of the Son. of God and is now in the habit of our flesh.' 2 Thus it is said by St. John, 'The 1V ord 'vas made flesh' (John i. 14); by St. Paul, 'Forasmuch as the children are par- takers of flesh and blood, He. also trJok part of the same' (Heb. ii. 14). ' He ook not the nature of angels, but He took the seed of Abraham' (Heb. ii. 16). It was' En1manuel, God ,vith us,' w40 ,vas born of the Virgin (Isai. vii. 14. :ßiatt. i. 23); yea, , the Son of God' (Luke i.. 32, 35).8 1 Primo illud nos oportet scire, quod aliud est in Christo Deitatis natura, quod est U nigenitus }'ilius Patris, et alia hu- mana natura quam in novissimis tempori- bus pro dispensatione suscepit. Origen, .De P'I'incipiis, Lib. I. ch. I. n. I. :I Hooker, Eccl. Pol. Bk. v. II. 3 The Scriptures clearly indicate this to have been the case. See Luke i. 39- 44; ii. I I. The former passage is espe- cially clear, showing that Elizabeth b)' the Holy Ghost, and even the yet unborn 'prophet of the Highest,' acknowledged the presence of their 'Lord,' when He was SEC. I1.J OF THI!.: SOX OF GOD. (;9 The fact, thus exhibited, that the SOll of God took in the ,volnb of the Virgin the nature of man, explains some of the most remarkable passages in the New Testam nt. As there is but one Person in Christ, and that the Person of the Son of God; it naturally follows, that even the actions proper to man will at times be attributed to God, and the actions proper to God 'v ill be attri- buted to the man J esus. 1 Thus 'we understand the Scripture, ,vhen it says, that men' crucified the Lord of Glory' (I Cor. ii. 8) ; ,vhen it fm, s, that' God purchased the Church with His own Blood' (Acts xx. 28); because, though God in His Divine Nature cannot be crucified, and has no blood to shed; yet the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, took into Iris Person the nature of nlan, in which nature lIe could suffer, could shed His blood, could be cruci- fied, could die. rrhus, again, ,ve understand the ScripturE\ ,vhen it attributes to a n1an powers and attributes which belong only to God. Our Lord (rJ ohn iii. 13) speaks of none h.aving gone up to Heaven' but the Son of n1an, which is in Heaven: ' yet the Son of man was then on earth. Omnipresence is an attribute of none but God. But the Son of man here spoken of was God, God having taken into His own Person man's nature. And so, , as oft as we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claimeth, or to Juan what His Deity hath right unto, ,ve understan(l by the name of God and the name of :JIan, neither the one nor the other nature, but the whole Person of Christ, in ,vhich both natures are.' 3 Of t.hat Person, then, ,ve may say, that He reigns as God, that He was subject as man. Of that Person ,ve n1ay say, that He liveth for ever, and yet that He suffered and died. Of that } erson we n1ay say, that He 'was crucified through weakness,' and yet that lIe hath' the Power of God.' Of that Person ,ve may say, that whilst He was bound down to live on earth, lIe yet filled Heaven with His presence and glory.4 yet in the womb of His mother. The earliest fathers speak as plainly on the sub- ject as if they had foresepn the heresy of Nestorius: c.g., ó ')'dp 8fð iJuwv 'I1](]"Oû Ò XpL(]"TÒ iKuO(þopi}f)1] å7rò l\Iapía KaT' OlKOVofJ.íav 8fOV fK (J7rÉpfJ.aTO fJ.Èv l1aßLO, nJleÚfJ.aTO ÓÈ á:yíov.-Ignat. ad Ephes. 18. 1 CUIll ergo in eo quædam ita. videa- mus humana nt nihil a communi morta- lium fragilitatedistare videantur, quædam ita divina, ut nulli alii nisi illi primæ et in- effabili naturæ con veniant Deitatis, hæret humani intellectus angustia, et tantæ ad- mirationi stnpore percussa quo declinet, quid ten eat, <{uo e convertat, ignorat. Si Deum sentiat, mortal em videt ; si ho- miut.i1 putet, devicto mortis imperio cum spoliis redeuntem a mortuis cernit. . . . Xam et l?ilius Dei mortuus esse dicitur, pro ea scilicet natura quæ mortem utique recirel'e poterat: et filius homini appel- latur, qui venturus in Dei Patris gloria cum sanctis angelis prædicatur.-Origeu, Dc Principiis, Lib. II. ch. VI. ll. 2, 3. :l Compare John i: 4 8 . 3 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. UII. 4. 4 'E7rì '}'1] J.1.Èv '}'àp Ó ".fíò Kaì Ó 8eòç AÓÎ'oç ßeßÝJKfL, oùpávov óÈ 7j7rTETO, haì 7ráVTE iXÐpoì. brÌ\1]pOÛVTO T1] ai'TOÛ ÓÓ 1] ' Kal ill )'Iaplq. hÚ')'Xavf Kaì áv- 70 OF TIlE SO OF GOD. [ART. II. 2. The Article having expressed the truth, that the Son of God took man's nature in the w'omb of the blessed \Tirgin, of her substance, adds, 'So that two \vhole and perfect natures, that js to say, the Godhead, and :\lanhood, \vere joined together in one Person.' Having already sho\vn that there 'vas but one Person 'with t\VO natures, it is necessary further to observe, that those two natures continued perfect and entire; for, though the Person was but one, the person of the eternal Son of God, yet ,ve must not suppose that the verity of either of His natures 'was lost or absorbed. ( I) That lIe ,vas perfect God, appears by what 'vas proved under the first .L-\..rticle; and indeed His Divine nature could not cease to be Divine by His taking to Hinl the nature of nlan; for God is not liable to change or to diminution. And though, by taking human nature, the Son of God was enabled to suffer, which to God simply would have been impossible, yet by taking human nature Ie did not change the nature of God. And this appears from plain passages of Scripture; for where the Son of God is spoken of as God, it is consta.ntly in those very passages where He is called by the name of Christ or of Jesus, or of the Son of man, or is spoken of as incarnate, c.g., John i. 14; iii. I 3; viii. 58; x. 30. ..Lt\.cts xx. 28. ROIn. ix. 5. 'Phi1. ii. 5, 6. Col. i. 14, I 5, &c. (2) That He \vas perfect lan will appear, if we can show, that He had a human Body and a human Sou], both subject to human infirn1Ïties and invested with hunlan attributes. That He had a hU111an }3ody appears from His birth of the Virgin ( Iatt. i. 25. 1--1uke i. 35 ; ii. 7); from His gro,vth like other children (Luke ii. 52); frotll His liability to hunger (Luke iv. 2); to ,veariness (John iv. 6); to pain (I.Juke xxii. 44); to bleeding and bloody s\veat (John xix. 34. Luke xxii. 44); to wounds and laceration ( John xx. 27); from His possessing flesh and bones (Luke xxiv. 39, 40); from His crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection. rrhat he had a perfect human oul appears from His ÐpW7ro Docetæ, who denied the one, naturally and necessarily denied the other. It was against them that St. John appears to have written many passages both in his Gospel and Epistles, as for exan1ple, .T ohn xix. 34, 3 5 . I John i v. 3; v. 6. 2 John 7. Errors against which the ,vords of Scripture are specially directed cannot lightly be disregarded by the Church. But as such errors are not likely to prevail extensively now, it may be unnecessary to dwell at length upon their refutation. 2. One subject connected with the death and sufferings of our Saviour requires to be a little further considered. The Son of God, by taking on Him human nature, became truly man; and one of the chief ends of His thus becoming untn was, that He might die. But it may be asked still, ,V"herein did His death consist, and how did He suffer? J\Ian dies, \vhen his soul leaves his body. Ian suffers, because his \vhole nature is passible. But Jesus Christ was man; yet not mere man. His Person consisted of the Eternal Son united to a human Body and a human Soul. Ho\v then did fIe suffer, and ho\v die? He suffered in His human nature, \vlich being a perfect human nature, was capable of suffering both in Soul and Body. 'Ve n1ay not imagine, as has already been shown, that His human nature ceased to be human nature ,vhen it was taken by His God- head; 'that the properties of the weaker nature have vanished with the presence of the more glorious, and have been therein swallowed up as in a gulf.' It is true then, that the Son of God suffered; but not in the Godhead. His Godhead could no more suffer than the Godhead of the Father. But He took hun1an nature, that He might suffer, and in His manhood the Son of God was crucified, and suffered and died. And IIis death consisted not in the separation of His Divine Being from either Body or Soul. Then \vould not the Son of G.od have died at all. Then Christ ,vould have been divided into two separate Pe"rsons, by the Godhead leaving the Ianhood: and the mystery and the blessing of the I:!1carnation would have been lost. The soul does not die by leaving the body, neither would the Son of God have died by leaving either Body or Soul. It was the Person of Christ that suffered death; and as that Person was invested ,vith the nature of man, death was to Him what death is to other men-viz., the separation of the human soul fronl the human body. The union of the Godhead with the manhood was not disturbed; but the hun1an Soul of Christ left IIis human Body. But even when the Soul forsook the Body, the Godhead forsook 74 OF THE SON OF GOD. [.ART. II. neither Body, nor Soul. I 'If it had, then could we not truly hold either that the Person of Christ was buried; or that the Person of Christ did raise up itself from the dead. For the Body separated from the Word, can in no true sense be termed the Person of Christ, nor is it true to say that the Son of God, in raising up that Body, did raise up Himself, if the Body were not both ,vith Him and of Hinl, even during the tinle it lay in the sepulchre. The like is also to be said of the Soul; other\vise \ve are plainly and inevitably Nestorians. The very Person of Christ therefore, for ever one and the self-same, was only touching bodily substance, concluded \vithin the grave. His Soul only from thence severed, but b personal union His Deity still inseparably joined ,vith both.' 2 3. The conclusion of the Article concerns the end and object of our blessed Saviour's sufferings. The Socinians deny that there ,vas any necessity for a pro- pitiatory sacrifice, or that God had need to be reconciled to man. )Ian, say they, was at enlnity ,vith God, not God ,vith man. )[an therefore needed to be reconciled, and so Christ canle to can nlen to repentance and to l1love them to it by His precept and example, and so committed to His disciples the ministry of reconciliation. But to say that God needed to have blood shed, and that the blood of an innocent and Holy "Victim, in order to appease His wrath, is to nlake God a vindictive and in1placable Being, not [1 God of love. The ans,ver to this is twofold. ( I ) , A God all mercy is a God unj ust :' Justice is an attri- bute of God as well as mercy. Justice therefore calling for wrath on rnan, and love and goodness calling for pardon, it was necessary in order to reconcile both these attributes of God, that some means should be devised for satisfying beJÌh. "\Ve do not say that God I "OUTE OÙK åv8pW7rM 8wû ixwpl[fTO, olín: 8fÒ 7rpÒ 8fÒV f'}'KaTáÌ\fl.1þtv OL7)- -YEl-ro. OUTf å7rOXc.hp7)UL 8EOV ?} å 7rÒ uc.h- fJ-aTO -f;V J.LfTáuTauL àÌ\Ì\à 1þvxf; å1T'Ò uc.hp,aTo XwpLup,ó .-Athanasiu8, De Salnt. Ad 'ent. Jesll Christ. Tom. 1. pp. 45, 6. Compare the passag-e from Fulgentius quoted in the exposition of the next Article: Secundum Divinitatem Ruam, quæ nec loco tenetur, nec fine cnnclu- ditur, totus fuit in sepulchro cum carne, tutus in inferno cum anima.--Fulgent. ad l'h7'asÙnund. Lill. III. ch. 34. This is well eXpre:;; ed in some of the Calvinistic Confessions: t.g. Oonfessio, Belgica. Art. XIX.: Cæterum duæ istæ naturæ ita sHnt simul unitæ et conjunctæ in unam Per:mnam, nt ne morte qnidem separari potuerint. Quod igitur Patri suo nlOriendo commeudavit, id vere erat spi- ritus humanus a corpore ips ius egl'ediens ; at interim divina natura semper humanæ (etiam in sf:'pulchro jacenti) conjuncta re- tnansit: adeo ut Deitas ipsa non minus in ipso tunc fuerit, quam cum adhuc infans esset, etsi exiguum ad tempus non sese exerceret.-Sylloge, p. 338. 2 Hooker, v. LlI. 4. The whole sub- ject is admirably treated bv Hooker; and by Pearson, Art. IY. 'Suffered,' 'Dead.' SEC. II.J OF THE SO OF GOD. 75 was tied to the means which He ordained: but we learn that His wisdom ordained the sacrifice of His Son, and in that sacrifice we perceiye a Inanifestation of infinite justice and infinite love. (2) But the saIne thing appears too fronl many passages ill Scripture. rrhere is some anl biguity in the ,yords used in the New Testanlent for' reconciliation.' The most learned critics have observed that those words are used in a sonlewhat different sense , from that in which the classical authors use them. But it is quite clear from thp contexts, that in some passages God is spoken of as needing to be reconciled to nlan. For example, in 2 Cor. v. 19, where it is said tbat ' God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himse If,' there Inight be some ambiguity, if it were not added, 'not imputing their trespasses unto thell1:' but these ,vords clear up the doubt. Indeed the whole context speaks as of t,yO offended parties, God and man. God is represented as giving up His wrath; and being reconciled through Christ, and then as sending to 11lan, to inyite him to giye up his enmity and be reconciled to God. I That the \vrath of God is revealed from IIeaven against sinful Ulan seelns bardly necessary to be proved. r:rhe -,,- rticle on Ori- ginal Sin is the more proper place for proving it. It may be sufficient no\v to refer to such passages as the following: ]{om. v. 9. Eph. ii. 3. I Thess. i. :rOo Heb. x. 26, 27. Rev. vi 16, 17. The Jewish sacrifices were expressly appointed to deliver froI11 the wrath of God. 2 The l}assover was appointed that the wrath of God might be averted when the firstborn of Egypt w.ere slain. In the 4th and 5th chapters of Leviticus, directions are given for the mode in which those ,vho have sinned shall 111ake atonement for their transgression. 1Yhether it \vere priest, prince, or people, they were to bring a victim, to confess thp sin upon tl1f head of the victim, and then slay it as a sin-offering. The same is observable of the offerings on tbe day of expiation; \'rhen the high-priest made atonement, first for hiInself, and then for th people; and al o of the scape-goat, which was offered at 1 See at length Iagee, Oil, Atonement, VoL J. p. 202, fifth edition, and the au- thors referred to there; especially Ham- mond and Whitby on Rom. v. 10 ; xi. 15 ; 2 Cor. v. 18. 19, 20; Ephes. ii. 16; and Co1. i. 20, I. 2 It is quite unneces:o:ary to consider the que tion whether sacrifice was a rite in the first instance divinely instituted, or devised by Ulan. If the "latter be, as some learned and pious authors ha \.e be- lieved, the truth ; still it sprang from a natural feeling of guilt, and the need of atonement, and was sanctioned by Al- mighty God and made a type of Christ, and rules were given for its observance, that the type might be more clear and express. The argument in the text there- fore would not be invalidated, even if the divine institution of sacrifice be denied. 76 OF THE SOX OF GOD. [ARf. II. the sanlC tinle, the sins of the people being confessed on his head (Lev. xvi.). The t.T ews looked on these sacrifices as strictly pro- pitiatory.I The Gentiles, ,vho imitated them, evidently had a sin1Ïlar notion of their offerings; and those especially, who, in tinles of peculiar danger, had recourse to human sacrifice, appear to have entertained a strong feeling of the necessity of propitiat- ing the gods ,vith the noblest victims. That the legal sacrifices \vere types of the death of Christ, and therefore tha.t Christ's death "as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men, appears plainly frorn the fact that the terms taken from the Jewish sacrifices are applied in Scripture to describe the death of Christ. Thns He is said to have been 'led as a lan1b to the slaughter' (see Isai. liii. 5 - 8). He is called 'the Lamb slain' (Rev. v. 6, 12; xiii. 8). 'A Lamb ,vithout blemish and \vithout spot' (1 Pet. i. 19); 'the Lamb of Goc1 which taketh away the sins of the world' (John i. 29). St. Paul expressly compares the priest- hood of Aaron with the priesthood of Christ; eXplaining to us that whereas the priest of old offered the blood of bulls and goats \vhich coulc1 not take away sin, but availed only to a carnal purifying (1-1eb. ix. 13), so Christ offered, not the blood of others, but His own blood-offered Himself to bear the sins of many; and so put away sin by the sacrifice of Hinlself. As under the Law', without shedding of blood ,vas no remissioD, and as the patterns of heavenly things \vere purifiell with the blood of sacri- ficed victinls, so the heavenly things themselves " ere purified ,vith better sacrifices, even Christ. (See Heb. ix. x.) 2 4. It nlay be ,veIl to observe one more expression \vhich occurs at the very end of the .Àrticle--viz., 'to be a sacrifice not only /01' original guilt, but also /o'i' all actual sins of ?nen.' It seems as if the reformers 'were anxious to meet a possible, perhaps an actual error, which, adl"Uitting the sacrifice of Christ 101' original sin, either denied renlÏ:::;sion to actual sins, or looked for pardon of then1 to something beside the propitiation offered on the cross. That actual, and not only original sin, is parL10ned for the sake of Christ, is taught repeatedly in the Old Testament, as well as the N e'v. Isaiah, besides saying that Christ' was wounded for our trans- gressions, and bruised for our iniquities,' adds a passage, expressly 1 l\Iagee, as a.bove, Illustrations, :Xo. XXIII. On the whole subject cOllsultGrotiuf;, De Satisfactione Christi; l\1agee, On ..:1 tOi1cment and Sacr(fice; e peC'ial1y the Illustrations at the end of VoL I., and the authors there referred to. I may venture to refer also to Sermon 1. of Sernums on the .Atonement, &c., by E. Harold Browne, IJondon: ..John ,Yo Parker and Son. SEC. I1.J OF THE SO OF GOD. - , , indicating actual sin: '..AJI ,ve like sheep have gone astray, ,ve have turned everyone to his own ,vay', and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isai. liii. 6). It is from' all iniquity' that' He gave HÏInself to redeen1 us' (Tit. ii. 14). It was, when ,ve w'ere not only 'alienated' by original guilt, but 'enemies through 'lcicked W01'!.:S' too, that Christ reconciled us (Col. i. 2 I). The persons whom the .Apostle speaks of, as not capable of being saved by the LaT\", but' justified freely by God's grace through the redenlption that is in Christ Jesus,' are described in the strongest tern1S as actual sinners (see ROln. iii. 12-26). And again (in I Cor. vi. 9, 10, I I) he paints the characters of some who had been' justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,' as having been stained with the foulest vices and the deadliest sins. St. John ( I John ii. I, 2) distinctly assures us, that, , if any man sin we have an .Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins.' And that he meant actuai sins i:-; 1ll0st apparent, because be begins the sentence with '1fy little children, these things I write unto you, that ) e sin not.' 'Ve conclude, therefore, that the sacrifice of Christ, the Son of God, offered by Him upon the cross, ,,""hereon in His hun1an nature He suffered and died, is a propitiation, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men. X OTE.-Objections are frequently urged to the doctrine of the Atonement, that it i:; founded on the presumption that God ig stern and unmerciful, and can only he appeased by blood, if not by the blood of the guilty, yet by the blood of theguiltless. It nlay bere- plied that in Holy Scripture the Atonement is always attributed, not to the anger. but to thelo\'eofGod. "God so loyed the world, that He gave His only begotten Son "(John iii. J 6). So I John iv. 10, &c. It may be that there is a mvsterious and inevitable connexioll between !5in and suffering, whidh cannot wholJy be dissolved; but God is never repre- sentf'Ù as taking pleasure in the sufferings of sinners, nor in the sufferings, but rather in the patience, voluntary humiliation. and lwroic self-devotiun of Christ (e.g., Phil. ii. 5- II). Again, it is not so much true that Christ suffered in sub:,titutioll for those whom He redeemed, as that He, the Second Adam, united the whole race to Himself as their Head, offered up Himself and in and with Him all redeemed Humanity to God, and so exhausted the penalty and abolished the power of sin. A R rl' I 0 11 E I I I. Of the going down of Christ into liell. De dcsccnsu Christi ad Inferos. As Christ died for lIS, and was buried; so also it is to be believed that He went down into lIeU. QUEMADMODUM Christus pro nobis mor- tuus est, et seplIltu , ita est etiam ere- dendus ad inft'ros de8ct'ndisse. TO the understanding of this Article it seems desirable to investigate, historically and from Scripture, FIRST, what is meant by , Hell',. SECO DL Y, 'v hat is meant by Christ's descend- ing into hell; THIRDLY, "\Vhat ,vas the purpose or object of that descent. I propose therefore to depart from the arrangement adopted in the t,vo fornler Articles, and to examine the nleaning of the ,vord 'Hen,' first historical1y, and then scriptural1y-and next to proceed in the same manner ,vith the doctrine of our Lord's descent into hell; and thirdly, with the reason or purpose of His going thither. FIRST. The word 'Hell,' as used in the Article, is plainly borrowed from the Apostles' Creed: for it appears that the first five Articles of the Church are little more than an amplification of the Articles of the Creec1, intending to set forth that the Church of England continued truly Catholic in its doctrines, ,vhilst it was constrained to protest against the corruptions of SOUle branches of the Church. In the Latin the word used is either 'inferi' or , inferna.' The Greek corresponding to this 'was either Ta KaTwTaTa Oi' I' ð 1 }Ç; the former referring to Eph. iv. 9, the latter to Acts ii. 27. It has, however, generally been admitted, and may fairly be assumed, that the Greek word l' ðJ}Ç' is the word of Scrip- ture which both the Creed and the Article render infer'i and 7w?l : nnd it has been observed that, accorc1ing to their deriyations, these words answer to one another. tf Aðl'}Ç is something unseen, from à and elðov. Inferí is the Latin from the Greek word ËvepoL or ËvFepol, i.e., those beneath the earth, the l\lanes or Spirits of the dead.! Hell is fron1 the same root as hole and hellyer (i.e., a roofer, 1 This seems 3. doubtful derivation. I does not make the derivation given in the Infer, Infra, Infcrus, Inferim', are obvi- text impossible. The Greek fpa is the ously alleOllnected. Though thiseonnexion same as the Hebrew r.' , in Chaldee and ART. Ill.] OF THE DESCENT IXTO HELL. í9 a coverer), and signifies the co 'erccl 01' hidden place, the Saxon root being hrlen, to cover. There is indeed another word in the New Testanlent often rendered in the English by lLCll. rrhat word is 7ÉEVVU: and some confusion arises from this indiscriminate translation. As, however, neitner the Creeds nor the Church have been wont to use 7ÉEVVU to express the place to which our Lord went after His death, we may lay aside the consideration of this word at present: merely observing, that it is the proper terlll in the New Testament for the state or place of damned souls and apostate spirits. As regards then the signification of the word Hades. it will be well to consider the subject: 1. Historically. II. Scripturally. I. The history may be divided into (1) The use of the word among the Greeks; (2) al110ng the Jews; (3) anlong the Christians. I. It may be true that the Greeks sornetÏ1nes used Hades to signify no more than the Grave; but if so, it was by an improper and less common use of the word. According to them, Hades, or the abode of Hades, was that place to which the G-hosts or 1\lanes of the dead went after their burial. The unburied were detained on tbis side the Styx; the buried passed over, and mingled with the souls of luen, lV hich were there detained apart from the bodies they had left (d{JwÀa Ka}J.ÓJJTwv). Had s himself ,,,as the deity who presided over these lower realms. In the abode of these disem- bodied souls were placed, on the one hand the happy fields of Elysium, on the other the gloomy realms of Tartarus. In the former, the souls of the virtuous enjoyed themselves, not however without regret for the loss of the body and the light of day. In the latter the wicked, such as Ixion, Tantalus, the Danaïds, and others, were tormented with various sorrows. This is known to everyone who has read the Odyssey and the Æneid. 1 Syriae 1J' ; in Arabic :.. t . The .J latter is the same as the German erdt!, English eal.th. The Chaldee and Syriae l" is, in sound as well as in its radi- c;l :l ttE'rs, the same as the Greek pa. And it is remarkable that it is used as a preposition to designate below 1JJ Infro. So lt 1''J Infra tee This may ecount for the forc of the preposition infra, on the hypothe:-;is that the derivation given in the text is correct. I See Hom. Ode XI. Virgo En. VI. Tbe la.tter describes the two sides of Hade:; thus: Hie locus est partes ubi se via findit ill ambas ; Dextera, quæ Ditis magni sub mænia tendit, Hac iter Elysium nobis; at læva rnalo- ru m Exercet pænas, et ad impia Tartara mittit. 3:- n. VI. 540-543. 80 OF THE DE8CEì\T INTO IIELL. [A.Jrr. III. 2. The Jews in like manner believed in a state of being after death, in \vhich the soul existed previously to the final Resurrec- tion, apart fronl the body, yet in a state of consciousness either of happiness or of misery. This state or place they called in ]lebrew, Sheol ('; ;), in Greek, Hades ( t ðlJÇ). Its position, according to their notions and language, ,,,,as underground. Thus Josophus says, that the soul of Samuel, \vhen he appeared to Saul, came up (È ej.'ðov) frolll Hades. l He tells us that the Sadducees , took a\vay the re\va.rds and punishments of the soul in Hades.' :2 'Vhereas he says of the Pharisees, that' they held the immortality of the soul, and that Inen ",.ere punished or rewarded under the earth, according to their practice of virtue or \vickedness in life. 3 Lightfoot has sho\vl1 that the J e\vish schools dispose of the souls of the righteous till the Resurrection, under the threefold pln ase : (I) 'the Garden of Edell,' answering to the' Paradise' of the Ne\v rrestament (Luke xxiii. 43): ( ) 'Under the throne of glory,' being nearly parallel with the expression (in Rev. vi. 9) of souls crying , under the altar;' for the J e\vs conceived the altar to be the throne of the Divine Iajesty: (3) 'In Abraham's bosom,' \vhich is the expression adopted by our Lord in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 22). 4 lIe shows that the abode of the ,,'ick:ed before the J udgn1ent is placed by the sanle Rabbins within sight of the abode of the just, and so that the one can converse \vith the other, as Dives is by our Lord represented as conversing ,vith Abrahanl. 5 From these and similar authorities "\ve may conclude that the Jews, like the heathen, looked for a state itnmediately after death, which in their popular language \yas said to be underground, and in their ordinary phraseology was called Sheol, Hades, Hell: that in this state were both the just and the unjust; the latter in a state of misery, the for111e1' in blissful enjoynlent, called sometimes 'Paradise, the Garden of Eden,' 1 Joseph. A nt. Lib. XVII. c. U. See Pearson, On t/te G1.eed, Art. v. p. 239. De Bell. J ucl. Lib. II. 'o/vXl) TE T JI òLap.ov v Kal Tà Ka(}' tjòov TL!.twpla Kal TLP.à àvaLpoûcn. Pearson, as above; King-, On the Greed, p. 189. 3 Ant. Lib. XVIII. c. II. à8avaT6v TE l()x vv Taî 'o/vxaî 7rl()TL aÙToê dvaL, Ka.l lJ1rð X(}ovð ÒLKa.LW()H TE Ka.l 7Lp.à , OLS àpETl} ?j 'mKia. hrLT770EV()L iv TcrJ ßi(, II01"æ IIl.b. on Luke xvi. 23, 26. See also Bp. Bull, Trorks, Vol. I. Di!'c. III. p. 59. Bp. Bull, p. 61, quotes from the Chaldee Paraphrast on Cant. iv. 12, who, speaking of the Garden of Eden (that is, Paradise), says, that' thereinto no man hath the power of entering but the just, whose souls are carried thither by the hands of angel:;;.' , If this,' adds the learned writer, 'had been an erroneous :-Ipinion of the Jews, doubtless our Saviour would nCH'r have given any the least countenance b it, much less would He have plainly confirmed it, by teaching the same thing in the parabìe of Dh-es and Lazarus.' AUT. IILJ OF THE JJESCKNT I l'O HELL. 81 sometitnes 'beneath the throne of glory,' sometimes' in .Abrahaln's bosom.' 3. It is well known, that the early Christians believed in an interluec1iate state of the soul behveen death and J uògll1ent: and this interlnec1iate state they too, like the Jews, called 'Hades.' ,J ustin Iartyr, speaking against sonle of the Gnostics who denied the Resurrection, and by consequence the intennediate state of the ::)oul, says, 'those, who say that there is no l esurrection, but that inlnJeùiately after death their souls are taken up to Heaven, tbese are not to be accounted either Christians or Jews.' I He himself ùistinctly asserts that ' No souls die (that would be a Godsend to the \vicked); but the souls of good men remain in a better, of bad lllen in a worse place, awaiting the tÏ1ne of the J udgnlent.' 2 'l'ertullian distinctly states his belief, that the souls of all men go to Hades (Ùiferi) until the Resurrection; the souls of the just being in that part of Hades called the bosoln of \braham, or Paradise. 3 Irenæus says, that the souls of Christ's disciples 'go into the invisible place prepared for theIn, and there remain awaiting the l esurrection: after which they shall receive their bodies again, and rise complete, that is, in the body, as the Lord arose, and so shall COlne to the vi::;ion of God.' 4 Origen declares his belief, that' not even the .Apostles have received their perfect bliss; for the saints at their departure out of this life do not attain the full rewards of their labours; but are awaiting us, ",ho still remain on earth, loitering though we be, and slack.' 5 1 O Kuì ÀÉ)'OVO"L p.1} ElvG.L Vf:KPWJ1 åpá- 67U6LV, åÀÀà äp.'l. Tft; å:rro6vÝ}O"KHv, Tås ïþvxàs UVTWV åvu"Aap.,BáV':6(}UL Els 7'ðv ovpavòv, p:Ý} l!1TO\áß1}TE UÚTOVS XpLO"TLá- vOVS', WO"7rEp Oi'ÒE 'Iovòulovs. - Dial. p. 3 0 7. .Paris, I ö I 5. That the still earl ier apostolical fathers lwId the same senti- ments concerning an intermediate statt-', may be seen froIll Clem. I. Corinth. c. 50. H<:>rm. III. Simile IX. 16. On the former pas,..;age see Bull, n 01'k8, VoL I. Serm. III. p. 63. Both his Sermons on thi8 subject are cleservinO" of a11 attention. :! 'AÀÀà :::Jp.1}V oltòÈ å7rO(}VÝ}fTKELV, lfJ1J/.Û. 7Tá6aS' TàS' ý;vXàS' f)'w, fpP.UtOV )'àp 1}v 11.-5' á'J\:lj(}wr; TOtS' KaKOLS', åÀ\à Tl; Tàs p.Ëv T V EV6EßWV Ëv KPElTTovi 7rOIJ XWP4? P.ÉvELV, 7àS' òÈ åòiKOVS' Kul 7rov'l}pàS' iv XElpoVL, TÒV T S' KpL6f.WS' ËKÒExop.Évas Xpóvov Tón. -Dialog. p. 222. 3 Nobis inferi, non nuda cavositas, nec subdivalis aliqua mundi sentina credun- tur; sed in fossa terræ et in alto vastita , et in ipsis visceribus ejus abstrusa pro- funditm::. . . . He then 8ays, Christ went there, and His servants must net expect to be above their Lord, but will have to wait in Abraham's bosom for the resurrection. S" ulli patet cælum, terra adhuc salva, ne dixerim clausa. Cum transactione enim mundi reserabnntnr regna cælorum. . . . Habes etiam de Paradiso a nobis Iibellum, qnn ('onstituimus onmem animam apud inferos 8eqHe trari ill diem Domilli.-Tt::r- tull. Dc Anima, cap. 55. 4 Ai ý;vxal å7rfPX O J,lTUL ElS TÓV TÓ7rOV invi:-;ibilem, TÒV WPL6pÉVOV UÚTULS' å.7rÒ TOÛ eEOV, Kå.Kâ P.ÉXPL T S' åVU6Tá6f.WS ifyOLTW6L, 7rapap.Évov6aL T1}V å.Vá:rTU6LV' l7rELTU å7roÀaßOÛUUL Tà 6W/J.UTU, KUì. ÒÀOKÀÝ}pWS åVU6TûO"aL TOVUUTL 6WP.U- TL" S', Ka(}ws ul KJ:'pLOS cÏVÉ'!T'l), OÜ:WS' ÈÀWUOVTUL fLS' T1JV VÝ;LV TOU ÐEOV.- Irenæ. v. 3 I. See also Beaven':; Account of b'enæU8, ch. XVIII. 5 N ondum receperunt lætitiam suam G 82 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [ART. III. Lactantins is very express upon tbe same point. ' Let no one,' says he, , think that souls are judged iInmediately after death; for they are all detained in the same common place of keeping, until the time come, when the Supreme Judge shall inquire into their good or evil deeds.' 1 Hilary says, that it is the 'la\v of human necessity, that bodies should be buried, and souls descend to hell or Hades.' And again, that' the faithful, \vho depart out of the body, are reserved in the safe keeping of the Lord for an entrance to the kingcloIIl of Heaven, being in the meantime placed in Abraharn's bosom (whither the wick d cannot enter, on account of the great gulf fixed between then1), until the time comes, when they shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven.' 2 Am brose still more fully says, that' \vhile the fulness of tilne is expected, the souls await the reward, which is in store for them. Some pain awaits, others glory. But in the meantilne the former are not \vithout trouble, nor are the latter without enjoyment.' 3 Augustine writes, 'The time between death and final resurrec- tion holds the souls in hidden receptacles, according as each soul js meet for rest or punishment.' 4 II. We have now to consider what we learn from SC1'iptu1"C, of the state of the departed, and of the meaning of Hades. I. The soul, after it has left the body, is not represented as passing directly to its final reward. This \vill appear from the following considerations :- Our Lord distinctly assures us, that' no one hath ascended up to Heaven but He that came do\vn from IIeaven, even the Son of 1\Ian which is in Heaven' (John iii. 13). If then no one had then ne Apostoli quidem sed et ipsi exspectant, ut et ego lætitiæ eorum particeps fiam. N eque enim decedentes hinc saneti con- tinuo integra meritorurn suorum præmia consequnntur, sed exspectant etiam nos licet morantes, licet desides.-Origen. Hom. VII. in Lev. num. ii.; U ssher's Answer to a Jesuit, ch. VII. 1 Nec tnmen quis quam putet animas post mortem prutinus judicari ; omnes in una communique custodia detinentur, donec témpus adveniat quo maximns Judex faciat examen.-Lactant. Institut. Divin. Lib. III. c. XXI.; U ssher, as above; ICing, p. 202. 2 Humanæ ista lex necessitatiR, ut se- pultis corporibus ad inferos animæ de- scendunt.-Hilar. in. Ps. cxxxviii. Edit. Benedict. p. 514. Fnturi boni expectatio est cum exeuntes de curpore ad introitum ilIum regni co: - lestis, per custodiam Domini fideles omnes rf'servabuntur, in sinu scilicet interim A.brahæ collocati, quo adire impios inter- jecturn chaos inhibet, quousque introeundi rursum in regnum cælorUlIl tempus ad\"e- lliat.-Hilar. in Ps. cxx. Edit. Benedict. p. 383. See U ssher and King as abóvt>. 3 Ergo dum exspectatur plenitudo ternporis, exspectant animæ remuneratio- nem debitam. Alias manet pæna, alia gloria; et tamen nee illæ interim sine in- juria, nec istæ sine fructu sunt.-Ambros. ele Bono ltlortis, c. x. Ussher, as above. 4 Tempus, quod inter hominis mortem et ultimam resurrectionem interpositUlll est, animas abditis receptaculis continet sicut unaquæque digna est vel requie vel ærumna.-Augustin. Bnchil'id. ad Lau- relit, c. en:. Tom. VI. p. 236. ART. IIl.J OF THE DE:sCEXT INTO HELL. 8; ascended up to I-IeaveD, except the Lord Jesus, the saints departed could not have gone to their place of final and eternal bliss, which is always called Heaven. Again, our Lord promised the thief on the cross, 'that he should be ,vith Him that day in Paradise' (Luke xxiii. 43). No,v Christ did not go fron1 the cross to Heaven, but, as will appear hereafter, He went to Hell or Hades, and did not go to Heaven, till after His resurrection. Therefore I arac1ise, to ,vhich the thief ,,"'ent \yith Hinl that verj-r day, was not Heaven. l Again, in the Revelation (vi. 9), 'the souls of-them that were slain for the ,yord of God,' are not represented as in Heaven, but they cry from under the altar; and, though ,vhite robes are given them, they are Lid 'to rest for a little season, till their fel1ow- servants and their brethren should be fulfiHec1.' Again, our Lord and His Apostles never comfort thp Church concerning those that are asleep, with the assurance that their souls are in Heaven, nor do they alarm the wicked \vith the fear that at the instant of death their souls will pass into a state of final punishment.. It is ever to the Resurrection of the dead and the Judgment of the great day, that the hopes of the pious and the fears of the ungodly are directed. This may be seen most plainly by referring to such passages as tbe following: l\fatt. xiii. 4 0 ; xvi. 27; xxv. 3 1-33. Iark viii. 38. Luke xiv. 14. John v. 28, 29. ..L-\..cts xvii. 3 1 . I Cor. xv. passim. 2 Cor. iv. 14; V. 10, I I. Phil. iii. 20, 2 I. Co1. iii. 4. I Thess. iv. 13- I 7; V. 2, 3, 23. 2 Thess. i. 6-10. 2 Tirn. iv. 1,8. Heb. ix. 27,28. Jas. v. 7,8. f Pet. iv. 5; v. 4. 2 Pet. iii. 10-12. Rev. xx. 13-15. 2. But though the soul does not receive its final re\vard until the Resurrection and the Judgment, \vhen it shall be united to the body, and receive the sentence of the Judge; yet the soul does not die witb the body, nor sleep in unconsciousness, between death and pJ ur1gment. 2 This appears from the follo\ving :-- 1 Si ergo secundum hominem qnem Verbum Dei suscppit, putamus dictum esse Hoelie mecum eris in Par(uliso, noll ex his verbis in cælo exi:5timandus est e:5se Pa.radisus" :Neque enim ipso die in cmlo futul'US erat homo Chri tu J t US, serl in inferno secundum animam, in sepulchro aut em secundum carnem. August. Epist. LVII. ad Dardanwn, ErJit. Benedict. .Ep. CLXXXVII. Tom. II. p. 670. The reformerH of the Church of Eng- land were so strongly of this opinion, that they put forth the followin in the reign of Edward VI., as one oÎ the Articles of the Church. It is the 40th of the 42 .\.rtic1es of 1552 : 'The semIs of them tbat depart thiR life du neither die with the bodies nor sleep idly. , They which say that the souls of such as depart hence do sleep, being without all sense, feeling, or perceiving, until the day of .Judgment, or affil"m that the souls die with the bodies, and at the last day shaU be raised up wit.h the same, do ut- ter]y di!'o:sent from the right belief declared to us in Holy Scripture.' G :2 84 OF THE DE CE T INTO HELL. [.ART. III. The soul of San)uel returned to earth after his body was in the grave (I SaID. xxviii. I I, I 4). :'Lis took place foul" years after Bar-nner s death. I n the parable at. history in Luke xvi., both I Jazarns and Dives are represented as alive, one in tOl'llJents, anel the other in .A"brahanl's bosom: and that all this took place hefore the Resurrection and the J ndgment, appears froll1 this, that in vv. 27, 28, the brothers of the rich Infin ,vere then alive on earth, and ill tbeir state of PI.obation, and Dives ,vished that Lazarus should be sent to thern to bring theul to repent. It is therefore quite clear that the present world ,vas still in existence, and therefore J udglllent yet futnr .. The saIne observations apply in all particulars to the account given of the souls beneath the altar, () often referred to, in l ev. vi. 9- I I. The promise ulso to the thief npon the cross, that be should be that day ,vith Christ in ] )aradise (Luke xxiii. 4 3) 111USt sho\v, that his soul would not be in a state of insensibility, hut of bliss. The same nlay be inferred from the words of our Lord, 'Fear not thenl which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul' ( Iatt.. x. 28). If death be not only corruption of the body, but insensibility of tbe soul, then men can kill the soul, as llluch as they can kill the body; for they canl10t kill the body eternally, nOt" prevent its rising again. They can kill the body and reduce it to corruption now; but the soul they cannot kill, neither no,y, nor ever. Again, the language used by our Lord and St. Stephen at the instant of death shows that the spiL'it would live: 'Father, into Thy hands I commend Iy spirit,' said Christ (Luke xxiii. 46). , T ol'c1 Jesus, receive lllY spirit,' said Stephen (Acts vii. 59). St. Paul speaks of the Church as, among other c0111panies, having in it ' the spirits of just men Inade perfect' (Heb. xii. 23); ,vhere the whole context shows, that he refers to the present, not to the future state of Ohristian privilege and blessing. He declares of hirnself, that he is in a strait bEtween two, 'having a desire to depart and to be \vith Christ,' 'which is far better. But if death be annihilation, until the Resurrection ,vakes Loth body and soul; he could hardly have called death better than life, nor have spoken of it as 'being with Christ' (Phil. i. 23). And again, the same Apostle, speaking of death, and calling the body a tabernacle of the onl (2 Cor. v. I, 2), says, "Vhilst we are at home in the body, we are ab. ent frOln the Lord: ' and then adds, '\ve are willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present \vith the Lord' (vv. 6-8). FrorH all this, \ve nlust conclude, tbat the spirit still lives, when .L RT. IILJ OF THE DESUEKT I TO HI LL. 85 it has left the body, and that, though it lo es the benefit of having a bodily tabernacle, yet, in the case of pious men, it is very vastly a gainer by death, inasmuch as, though absent from the body, it enjoys the presence of Christ. 3. Having thus seen that the diselubodied soul neither sleep nor enters into its final reward, we have only further to show, that the sonl is in an intermediate state, called Sheol, or Hades; and that that state is a state of partial and expectant bliss to the righteous, of partial and expectant misery to the wicked, prepara- tory to the final COnSU111111ation of bliss or misery, to be nssignec1 to each at the resurrection of the last day. It has been seen that this was the opinion of the Jews, and also that our Lord and the .L\.postlcs used the very expressions which Lightfoot has sho\vn that the .1 ews used concerning the state of the departed-viz., 'Paradise,' 'Abraham's bosoln,' and 'heneath the altar,' answering to 'beneath the throne of glory.' This would of itself Ï1nply, that our Lord and His Apostles sanctioned the sentiment.s of the Jelvs upon the subject. The sanle has ap- peared concerning the Jewish use of the terln I-Iades, which is a term frequently adopted by the ,vriters of the New Testament. The various passages of Scripture already referred to ful1y COnfirl11 this view of the case. For exaulple, the souls beneath th altar (in llev. vi.) are clothed in white robes, and comfort.ed with hope; but plainly not in perfect consulnmation and bliss. St. Pa.ul (in 2 Cor. v. 1-8), when looking forward to the hope of resur- rection, distinctly describes the sta.te of the disembodied soul as imperfect, and though he says, it is 'better to be absent feom th body, and present with the Lord ' (' er. 8), he still says, that onr earnest desire is fot. the resurrection of 1 he body, ,yhich he calls being' clothed upon' (ver. 4). Again (Rom. viii. 19-23), he re- presents the whole creation as longing to be delivered froIH bondage, and waiting for the redenlptioll of th'e body. In I-Ieb. xi. 40 he represents the saints d(:\parted as not' made perfect,' until those who should succeed them \vere added to t.he number of the redeemed. To these passages we lllUst add the pron1Ïse to the thief npon the cross, that he should be in Paradise, a place evidently of bliss, yet, as has already been seen, not the sanle as IIeaven. Lazarus is spoken of as comforted in Abrahanl's bosom; an expression by no means answering to thE" glowing descriptions of the eternal ](ingdoI11 of God, though corresponding ,vith the Jewish and early Christian ideas of the state of internlediate bliss. Dives, too, is represented as being in the sanle place as Lazarus, though sepa- 86 uF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [ ART. III. rated by a great gulf frorn hÏIn, and, unlike hirD, suffering tor- ment; and that place is expressly called Hades (Luke xvi. 23). . In correspondence with all this, we find in the Old Testament that ,J acob expected 'to go down to Sheol (i.e. IIades) unto his son' (Gen. xxxvii. 35). Korah, Dathan, and ....\.biram are said to go down' quick into Sheol' (Nunl. xvi. 30); and when the king of Babylon's fate is foretold by Isaiah, it is said that 'Hades (or Sheol) [rO[11 beneath shall be nloved to meet him;' ,vi1Ïch is ex- plained by what follows, that the 'mighty dead shall be stirred up' at his approach (Isai. xiv.). I think it hardly necessary to add lnore, to show, that on this point the opinion of the ancients is lllore COlTect than that of the nlodern popular creeds; and that the Roman Catholic notions of purgatorJ ' the connnon opinion that the soul at once passes to its final reward, and the belief that the soul sleeps from Death to J udgn1ent, are all without support ft'onl the Scriptures of God. rrhose Scriptures plainly speak of the final reward to be attained only at the Resurrection; yet they show too, that the soul is in a state of consciousness bet,veen death and J udglnent. That state of consciousness is evidently a happy, though not a perfect, state to the good, a suffering, though not a fully miserable state to the wicked. rrhis state is also called at tiLnes by various nanles; but its general designation, ,vhether as regards the just or the unjust, is in the Hebrew Shcol, in the Greek Hades, and both these words (as ,veIl as others of a different signification) are generally rendered hy our English translators hell. Our SECOND consideration is, "That is meant by our Lord's clescent into hell-and what authoritv then is for the doctrine. 0/ 1. lIistorically. 1'11e article, 'He descenÇ.ed into hell,' was not very anciently in the Creed . The first place ,ve find it used in, was the church of Aquileia,l about A.D. 400. Yet it is contained in a sort of exposition of the Christian laith given by Ensebius, which he translated froln the Syriac, and which he states to have been given by Thadllæus to the people of Edessa. 2 It is not, however, in the Creeds of Irenæus, Origen, Tertullian; Cyprian, in the Creed of the Council of Nice, nor in the nlore ancient draughts of the Roman or Apostles' Ceeed. Still tbere can be no question of its very general acceptance, as an article of faith, by a.ll the earlier ] l>earson. p. 225. I Hey, Bk. IV. Art. III. S I; Hammond's 2 Euseb. J. 13; Bingham x. 4, 18; P1'art. CatcclL. Bk. v. S 2. ART. IILJ OJ.' THE DESCENT INTO HE LL. 87 fathers of the Church. Ignatius, Hermas, Justin 1\1., Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, have all spoken clearly on this subject; besides later fathers, such as Cyril, An1brose, J erOlne, .....L\..ugustine, Chrysost0l11. It will be necessary to refer rnore particularly to the sentiments of SODle of these fathers, when 'we COllie to OU}' THIRD di\yision, concerning the purpose of Christ's descent. At present let it suffice to quote a few of the more striking, as well as the best known, passages, froll1 some of the earliest Christian writers. Irenæus says, that 'our Lord was in the nliddle of the shadow of deatb, where are the souls of the dpad, and after that rose again with His body.' 1 rrertullian, in a chapter before quoted, says, that 'Christ, ,vho is God, yet being man too, died according to the Scriptures, ,vas buried, and ,vent through the form of human death in Hades; nor did lIe ascend into 11eaven, till He had gone down to the lower parts of the earth.' 2 Cyprian shows, that our Lord' was not to be overcome by death, nor to remain in hell.' 3 Lord King says, that in sundry places Atbanasius shows, 'that whilst Christ's Body lay buried in the grave, His Soul ,vent into hell, to per- form in that place those several actions, and operations, \\'"hich were necessary for the complete redenl.ption and salvation of man- kind; that He perfornled after His death different actions by His two essentinl parts; by IIis Body He lay in the grave, by His Sonl he went into hell, and vanquished death.' 4: One principal reason why the fathers laid great stress on the belief in Christ's descent to Hades was this. rrhe Arians and Apollinarians denied the existence of a rational human soul in .Jesus Christ. 5 Now the true doctrine of our Lord's hUl1lanity-viz., that He ,vas ' perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh ubsisting, ,vas most strongly n1aintained by asserting the Article 1 Irenæ. v. 31. Oum enim Dominus in medio nmbræ mortis abierit, ubi animæ lllortuorum erant, post deinde corpol'aliter resurrexit. See Pear on, p. 237; alld Beaven's Acco'uul of Ireli((!llS, ch. XVIII. 2 De Anima, c. LV. Quod 8i Christus ï )ells, quia et homo, mortuu secundum Seripturas, et sepultus secllndnm easdem, hic quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanæ mortis apud inferos functus, nee ante aseendit in sublimiora c02lorum, quam descendit in inferiora terrarum, &c. :l Quoà a morte non villceretnr, nec apud inferos remansurus erat.-Oyp. 1'Cðt. adr. Judæ. lib. 2, c. 24. 4 King, p. 179. The words are Lord King's not Athanasins'. K eyertheless Athanasius' language may justify Lord King's statemt">nt. . . . p.f;u. T1}S OEÓT7)TOS TOÛ epulchro se- cundum \'eram carnell) Christus mortuus jacuit, et secundum animam ad infernum Christus descendit. . . . Spclmdum diyi- nitatem vero sua.m, qnæ nee loco tenetur. nec fine concluditur, tutus fuit in sepul- chro cum carne, totus in inferno cum aninla; ac pt'r hoc plenus fuit ubiqul Christu , quia uon e t Deus ab humalli- tate quam suscepHat :separatus, &c. So Hilary, in P:5. exxxnlI. (lnam descensionem Dominus aù comnnnmatio- nem \'eri hominis non recusavit. See Pearson, pp. 226, 228. Irenæu , Origen, Athan3sius, .J erume, all quote this passage to pl"Ove 01' express the de- Rcent into hell. AnT. IILJ OF THE DESCENT I TO HELL. 80 I Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades (Elço ðOV), neither wilt Thou suffer Thine IIoly One to see corruption: ' and he explains it, that the Psalmist 'spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His Soul was not left in Hades, neither His Flesh did see corruption.' 1 In which explanation by the Apostle, it is plain, that the soul is in antithesis to the flesh, and Hades to cm 1"1lption; so that the nliracle of our Lord's resurrection \yas the consequence of His Flesh not being suffered to be corrupted in the grave, and His Soul not being suffered to remain in Hades. That is to say, our Lord had a human nature like OUf own. '.Vhen human beings die, the soul leaves the body; the latter is laid in the grave, the fonner passes to the intermediate state of souls. vVith ordinary men, the body sees corruption, the soul is left in Hades till the judgment. But with Christ, though He fully passed into the state of death, yet death did not retain dominion over Hirn. Although therefore His BodJ was laid in the sepulchre, it saw no corruption; although His Soul went to Hades, where other souls go, yet God did not leave it there, but it ,vas on the third day reunited to the Body, and so the Body was raised from the grave. If it be necessary to add anything to this passage, we may further remark, that., as it IU1S already been sho\vn that Paradise is the state of the departed souls of the rec1ee1ned; so our Lord"s promise to the thief upon tbe cross, that he should be with Him that day in Paradise, proves clearly, that our Lord, and with IIÜn the repentant thief, passed from the cross into the state of the souls of the dead, \-vhich, as has been shown, is called Hades or lIeU. It was indeed into the happy division of Hades called Paradise, or Abrahan1's bosom; but still it was to part of Hades. 2 \r e 110W come to the THIRD division of our subject, to con- sider what was the purpose of our Lord's descent to Hades. 1. IIistorically, we nlust consider this subject as briefly as we can. I. It has already been seen, thRt many of the fathers looked on the belief in our Lord's passage to Hades as necessary for the acknowledgment of the verity of His manhood and of His death. 1 Et Dominum quidem carne mortifi- catum venisse in iufernmn, !-:ati=-: constat. :Neque enim contradici potest vel pro- phetiæquædixit, QuonÙlIn tum derdinques animam meam in infano: qUlld ne aliter quisquaru sapere auderet, in Actibus Apo- stolorum idem Petrus expnnit. AuO'ustin. L' . T ::J LL; st. CLX(Y. om II. p. Sï4. 2 So the author of the Homilyon Diw' and Lazarus, attributed to Ch 'VSO:;:tOlU : Dicat mihi aliquis, in inferno è'st Para- di::;us! Ego hoc dico, quia sinus Aurahæ Pa.radisi veritas est: sed tot "anctissimum Paradisum fateor. Homil. in Luc. XVI. De Dhite, Tom. II. Opere Chry ()st. Latin. U ssher, AnslI.:er to a .lc.m it, ch. VIII. 90 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [ART. III. This indeed appears to have been the universal sentiment of the primitive Church: and accordingly, the descent to H.ades \vas urged by the fathers against the Apollinarian heresy.! 2. But though this may be said to have been the universal sentilllent of the early Christians, there ,vere also various opinions current among theIn, as to what our Lord did, during His stay alTIOng the souls of the dead. Ahnost universal appears to have been the belief that the Spirit or Soul of Christ preached the gospel to the souls of the dead. 2 I-Iermas, who is reckoned apostolical, has set forth the doctrine, that not only Christ preached to the spirits in Hades, but that the A postles too preached, to those who had died before them, the name of the Son of God. 3 In this he is followed and quoted by Clement of Alexandria. 4 Irenæus, again, says, tbat he heard from a certain presbyter, \v ho heard it from those \v ho had seen the Apostles, that our Lord descended to the places beneath the earth, and preached His Gospel to those \vho ,vere there; and all believed in Him who had foretold His advent-the just, the prophets, the patriarchs; ,vhose sins He forgave, as He does ours. 5 The passage of Scripture, on which this general belief of the early Christians \vas founded, is I Pet. iii. 19. Justin l\1artyr and Irenæus also quote a passage from Isaiah or Jeremiah, which is not extant in any copies of the Bible. The passage is this, , rrhe Lord God renlembered IIis dead, who slept in the sepulchral earth, and descended to them to preach His salvation.' 6 Justin charges the J e\vs with having erased it from the LXX. Of the spurious- ness of the text there can be no doubt; Lut it sufficiently shows the judgment of those fathers who quoted it, concerning the doctrine ,vhich it was adduced to prove. Thus far then the early Christians appear almost unallinlous. On the purpose or end of Christ's preaching, however, there existed no snlall difference. (I) The earlier fathers seenl g nerally to have held, that no change took place in the condition of souls after our Lord's descent among then1, and in consequence of His preaching to thenl. Justin 1 See under the second di\'i ion of this Article passages from Irenæus, Tertullian, A thanasius, Ifulgentius. See also Pear;:;on, P.23 8 . Ku8LK6fJ.(vo<; iv Toî<; KUTWTáTOL<; TOÛ Q.'ÔOIJ fJ.lJxoî<;, Kuì ÕLUK'YJPÚ U<; Tot<; ixEÎ(Tf 7rv(lífJ.u(n. Cyril. Alex. 110m. Paschal. xx. U ssher, AnS1t'Cl. to a Jesuit, ch. nIl. 3 Lib. III. SÍ1nil. IX. C. XVI. Coteler. I. p. II7. 4 Str0711Jlt. YI. Potter, pp. 7 6 3, 764. See Bp. Kaye's Clt'ment of Al(XCtlldria, p. 18 9. 5 Iren. Lib. IV. C. XJJV. 6 J U!';till :\1. Dial. 72, p. 398. Ireu. II 1. 23, I Y. 39, v. 3 I . ART. IILJ Ov' THE DESCENT IKTO HELL. 91 l\lartyr held, tbat all souls still remain in Hades; the just in a happy, the unjust in a wretched place, and so shall ren1ain to the .f udgment. 1 Irenæus and Tertullian are clearly of the san1e opinion. The former says, 2 that no disciple is above his master, and thence infers that, as onr Lord ,vent to Hades, so all His servants shall go thither. Tertullian asserts, that Heaven is not open until the end of the \vorld,3 and that all nlell are in Hades, either cOlnforted or tormented. 4 Accordingly, he says that our Lord's descent to Hades was, that the patriarchs n1ight be n1ade partakers of Him. 5 (2) But on the other hand, 111any of the early Christians were of opinion, that our Lord, \v hen He descended to Hades, delivered some ,vho were there, and carried then1 thence to SOlne better p] ace. Some thought, that the prophets and patriarchs \vere in Hades till the coming of Christ, and that after that they were translated to a better place, called Paradise; whilst others again believed, that our Lord preached His Gospel to the souls of the dead, and that those ,,-ho believed in Hinl \vere saved find delivered from Hades, those who rejected Him were condemned. There seen1 traces of this opinion in the above-noticed passage of IIermas, cOlnmonly called an apostolical father, and in Clement of Alexandria, who followed him. Origen, however, appears to be the first who distinctly propounded the opinion, that, after the coming of Christ, the souls of the just, instead of going to Hades, pass at once to SOllle better p1ace, called Paradise. 6 1 See the passages quoted in the llote untIer the Flr.ST head, 1. 3, p. 81, note I. 2 Kunc autem (Dominus)trilJUsdiebu conversatns est ubi erant 1l10rtui. . . . Cum autcm Dominus in 'medio 'lonbræ nlOl.ti. abierit, ubi animæ mortuorum erant . . . manifestum est quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et hoc operatus e,.t Dominus at ýlvxaì å.7rfpXOVTat t:Ì<; TÒV TÓ7rOP invi- ihi1ern TÒV wptO"}.dlloll aÙToL<;. . . . lYOllO cl/im disc7Jndus s'llpa '11wgistl'lon.: lJer- fect us a U(('in omnis ertt stcut mag ister ejus. QuomoJo ergo magister noster non statim evolans abiit, sed sustinens definitum a Patre re:::urrectionis tempus, post triduum resurgens assumptus est; sic et nos :ms- tinere debemus definitum a Deo resurrec- tionis tempus, prænuntiatnm a prophetis, et sic resurgentes assumi. Irenæ. v. 3 I. 3 De Anima, c. LV., quoted above. 4 Dc Anima, c. LVIII. 5 ])e cendit in inferiora terra rum, ut. i1lic patriarchas et prophetas compotes sui faceret. De Anima, c. LV. See also ach'. J[(('J.cion. Lib. IV. c. XXXIV. Also Bp. Kaye's T{'rtullia1l, p. 262. 6 This is apparent, as the opinion of Origen, in tht-' whole of the 2nd HOIi1ily on the ht Book of Kings, known as the Homily de Enyastrimytho. There he argues that the soul of Samuel. which was ca]]eù up by the witch of Endor, was in Hades; so were the souls of Abraham, I aac,. Jacob, and the prophets; none of them could pass the flaming word, till Christ came to set them free. Therefore it was that Lazarus, though in Abraham's bosom, could see ni\"es, who was in tor- ments. But after Christ is come, Chris- tians can pass the fl:l1uing- sword into Paradi..;e without harm. Paradisf', how- ever, was not in Ht.a Yen, according to Origen, but still an interlllPdiate state, though better than Hades. This appears from the following, if Ruffinus has rightly translated him :-Puto enim quod sancti di8cedentes de hac vita permanebul1t ill 9:2 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [.ART. III. Accordingly, the later fathers generally adopted the notion that, till Chrisfs death, the patriarchs and prophets were in Hades, but afterwards (fronl the time that Christ pronlised to the thief on the cross that be should be \vith Him in Paradise), they passed into Paradise, which therefore they distinguished from Irades. 1 Hades indeed they looked on as a place of rest to the just, but Paradise as far better. 2 Here, of course, we begin to perceive the gerln of the doctrine of the LÚnbus PatTll11L Yet that the notion entertained by the fathers was vastly different froill that of the nlediæval Church, \vill be sufficiently apparent to anyone ,,'ho will read the passages ,vhich have been thro,vn into the notes. Another opinion, ho,vever, gre\v up also in the earlyages-viz., t.hat Ohrist not only translated the pious frOlTI Hades to lllore joyous abodes, but that even sonle of those, who in old tinles had been disobedient, yet, on hearing Christ's preaching, believed, and so ,vere saved and delivered fronl torment and hel1. 3 This appears to have been the opinion of Angustine. He was ev"idently puzzled loco aliquoin terra posito quem Paradisum (licit Scriptura divina, n lut in quod am eruditionis loco, et, ut ita dixerim, audi- torio vel schola animarum in quo de om- nibus his quæ in terris videraut doceantur, indicia quoque 1uædam aceipia.nt tiam de futuris, &c. Dc Principiis, Lib. H. cap. XI. num. 6. Bp. Beveridge, 011 this ArticJe, quotes a passage from Ignatius, which should Hhow that that ancient father took thp Hame view as Oriqen and others after him. The passage, howf'ver, is from an inter- polated EpistIf'. and therefore proves nothing. Ad Trall. IX. Coteler. V 01. II. p.64. 1 Dominus resurrection is suæ pignore yincula sol vit illferni, et piorum animas elevavit. AOlbro . de Fide ad Gratian. Lib. IV. c. T. Ante ad ventum Christi omnia ad in- feros pariter ducebantur. U nde et Jacob ad interos pariter descensurum se dicit; et Job pins et impios in inferno queritur retentari: et evangelium chaos rnagnuin interpositum apnd inferos esse testatur, et revera antequam flammea1ll illr ll1rotall1 et igneam romphæalll ad Paradisi fores Christus cum latrone reseraret, clausa erant cæIestia. Hieronym. Com. in Eccles. c. III. Tom. II. p. 736. Edit. Belled. Quoted in part by King, p. 209. See also Pearson, p. 230. 2 Si cnim non absurde videtur, anti- quos etiam sancto , qui \"enturi Chri:;ti tenuerunt fidem, locis qnidem a turmenti impiorum remotissimis, sed apud infero;>; fl1isse donec eos inde sanguis CLristi et ad ea Ioea descensus erueret, profect/) deinceps boni fideles effu!'ìo illo pretio jaw I'edempti, l'r(lrsus inferos nesciunt, donee etiam receptis corporibns, bona reeipiant (luæ merentur. August. de C'iât. Ihi, Lib. xx. c. xv. Tom. VII. p. 593. Quoted ill part by King, p. 212. See also 1:p;:5I. CLXIV. Tom. YIII. p. 575 ; Epist. CLXXXVII. p. 679. 3 Expel's peccati Chri:;tns, cum ad Tartara ima desceudens seras inferni jan n- asque coníringens, vinctas peccatoanimas. mortis dominatione destrneta, e diaboli faucibus revocavit ad vitam. Ambros. de Jl,ljstcrio Paschæ, c. 4. Domillum nostrum Jesus Chri;:;tum, qni ad fornaeem descend it inferni, in quo clausæ et peccatOl'um et justorllm animæ tenebantur, ut absque exustione et noxa sui eos, qui tenebantur inclu..i, mQrtis vinculis liberaret. Hieron. J.,jib. I. in Daniel. c. III. Tom. III. p. 1086. lnvocavit ergo Redemptor nuster nomen Domini ùe ]acu no\"issimo, cum in virtute divillitatis descendit ad inferes. et destructis clausis Tartari, suos qUt)S ibi reperit eruens, victor ad superm; a cendit. Id. Lib. II. 'ÙI Lamentat. c. III. Tom. v. p. 829. The genuilleneRs of this cornmt:ll- tar)" is doubtfu1. N ec ipsam tamen rerum pat.tem nORtf'r Salvat0r mortuus pro nobis visitare COIl- AUT. II LJ OF THE VE;-';UE T INTO HELL. 9:1 as to the meaning of the word Haùes, and doubted, whether it ever meant a place of rest and happiness (although at tilnes he appears to have admitted that it did); and thinking it a place of tonnent, he thoual consideration of the end of Christ's descent to Hades, we may observe: I. That it is plain He went thither, that He might fulfil the conditions of death proper to human nature. vVhen Inan dies, the spirit leaves the body, the body is buried, the spirit goes to the abode of the departed, where the souls of men await t.he resurrection of the dead. Christ fulfilled this twofold condition. His Body was buried, and His Soul passed into Hades or Paradise. This it is unnecessary to d'well upon, as it seeIns evident that, as our Lord was perfect luan, so it ,vas IIis will, and the will of I-lis Father, that He should undergo all the conditions of human nature, and especially that He should truly suffer death. Now death cannot be truly suffered, unless the soul leaves the body, and goes to the abode of departed spirits. 2. But it becomes necessary here to consider, whether the text I l et" iii. I 8, 19 (which was so applied by all the fathers, and by the English refornlers of the reign of Ed,vard the Sixth), gives us any further account of the end and object of Christ's descent to Hades. 1\lany divines of the bjnglish Church deny altogether its applicability to this q l1estion. vV riters of no less name than I-Iamm ond, Pearson, Barrow, &c., contend that the only meaning of St. Peter's words is, that our Lord, by His Holy Spirit, inspiring Noah, preached to the disobedient antediluvians, ,vho are now for their disobedience imprisoned in hel1. 1 This interpretation of the passage depends on the accuracy of the English version. rrhat version reads in the eighteenth verse 'quickened by the Spirit.' It is to be noted, ho\vever, that aU the ancient versions except one (the Ethiopic) seem to have understood it ' quickened in spirit:' and it is scarcely possible, upon any correct principles of interpretation, to give any other translation to the ,vords. 2 If therefore ,ve follow th( original, in preference to the helL This, Iike mo t of J. .nlede'::; learned discol1r es, is well worth reading. See also this view of the end anfl character of our Lord's descent into hen considered and disproved by Ep. Pearson, p. 24 8 . 1 A question as to whether this might be the meaning of the passage, had been proposed by St. Jerome, and St. Augus- tine. Hieron. Lib. XT. in Esai. cap. LI "- August. Epist. CLXIV. See Ussher's An- swe7' to a Jesuit, ch. YIII. 2 The words in the Greek are 8aJlQTW- efl p.ÈJI O"apKl, rwo7roL'l]8d ôÈ T4J 7rPfÚ- p.an. The article T before 7rJlfúp.aTt is of so little authority, that 'Vet::-tein. Griesbach and Iatthäi, Lachmann and Tischendorf, have rejected it from the text, Bi!"hop J\iiddleton had observed, that in order to admit of the rendering of the English version, or to allow 118 to nnder:;;tr:.nd by 'Spirit' here thA Hol.\-- Spirit of God, it would be absolutely ne- CE'RSary, that there should be not only an article, but a preposition also before 7rllf.Ú- p.an. If the article Le not authentic, we must render 'dead cal'nally, but alive spiritually.' If we admit the article, we must then translate, 'dead in body, but alive in His spirit,' 'i.e., in His soul. TIH' ART. IILJ OF THE DESCE T INTO HELL. 95 English version, we nlllst read the passage thus: 'Christ suffered for us, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to G-od; being put to death in the flesh, but quick in His spirit; by which (or in which) lIe went and preached (or proclainled) to the spirits in safe keeping,' &c. There is, it will be observed, a marked anti- thesis between 'flesh' and' spirit.' In Christ's Flesh or Rody, He ,vas put to death. l\len were 'able to kill the body,' but they could not kill His soul. He was therefore alive in His 80ul,1 and in or by tbat He went to the souls who were in safe custody (ÈJ/ cþvÀwcn); His Body was dead, but His Spirit, or Soul, ,vent to their spirits, or souls. This is the natural interpretation of the passage; and if it ended here, it would contain no difficulty, and its sense would never have been dOll bted. It would have contained a simple assertion of our Lord's descent to the spirits of the dead. 2 But it is added, that He not only ,vent to the spirits in saf keeping, but that He \vent alid preached to theln. Hence it has been inferred that, if He preached, they had need of, and He offered to them, repentance. lIenee the passage has appeared to savour of false doctrine, and hence its force has been eXplained away. Hut the word 'preached,' or 'proclaimed,' by no means necessarily infers, that He preached either faith or repentance. Christ had just tiuished the work of salvation, had nlacle an end of sin, and conquered hell. Even the angels seem not to be fully enlightened, as to all the work of grace, 'which God performs for man. It is not likely, then, that the souls of the departed patriarchs should have fully understood or known all that Chri t had just accomplished for them. They indeed may have known, and no doubt dill kno,v, the great truth, that redemption ,vas to be wrought for all men by the sufferings and death of the Iessiah. But before the accomplishnlent of this great 'work, neither angels nor devils seem fully to have understood the mystery of it. If this be true; when the blessed Soul of our crucified Redeemer went among the souls of those whom He had just redeemed, what can be 1110re probable than that lIe. should have 'proeIainled' ancient versions support this rendering, and Iichaelis and Rosenmiiller give a similar interpretation. Bp. :Middleton refers with full approbation to Dp. Hors- ley's Sermon mentioned below. See 1\fidùleto)), On the A'I.ticle, in loco 1 !wo7foL7J(hìs corresponds with the Hiphil of i1'i1, which mean!' 'to keep alive,' as much as 'to make alive.' 2 The expre sion ill cþv'XaKll by no means necessarily signifies a place of punishment. It lIIay mean a placp of protection. It is simply in t:ard, in !luardian.r;hip. The rendering of the Syriac, which, from its antiquity, is so im- \\ .^ () portant, is "Q..a.... in [lades. The following is its rendering of the wholt> passage: 'He was dead in Body, but alive in Spirit: and He preachpd to those souls which were kept in Hades.' 96 o Ii' THE DESCENT lXTO HELL. [.A.RT. II I. (ÈK;ípU f:V) to them, that their redemption had been fully effected, that Satan had been conquered, that the great sacrifice had been offered up ? If angels joy over one sinner that repenteth; n:ay we not suppose l aradise filled with rapture \vhen the Soul of Jesus carne atl10ng the souls of His redeeIl1ed, I-lin1self the herald (K'fípu ) of His own victory? This is the view propounded by Bp. IIorsley in hiR admirable Bermon on this text? It is perfectly unnecessary to suppose, that the purpose of Christ's preaching in Hades, or Paradise, was similar to that of IIis or His .A.postles' preaching on earth. Both indeed were preachings of glad tidings. But in this was the dif- ference. Preaching on earth is to men .who llepd repentance, and whose repentance is acceptable. Preaching to the souls of the departed \vas a mere proclain1ing of blessedness to men \v ho had already repented when on earth, and had no nef\d of repentance after death, \vhen we have no promise that it shall ever come or should avail if it did come. rrhe only difficulty, in this interpretation of this difficult pas- sage, is in the fact, that the preaching is especially said to have been aùdressed to those '\vho had once been disobedient in the days of Noah.' That many, ,vho died in the flood, n1ay yet have been saved from final darnnation, seems highly probable, and has bef\n the opinion of Inan)T learned divines. The flood \vas a great tem- poral j udglllent, and it follo\vs not that 'all \vho perished in the flood are to perish everlastingly in the lake of fire.' But the real difficulty consists in the fact, that the proc1au1ation of the finish- ing of the great work of salvation is represented by St. Peter, as having been addressed to these antediluvian penitents, and no Illention is made of the penitents of later ages, \vho are eClually interested in the tidings. It must be cQnfessed that this is a knot \vhich cannot easily be untied. Yet should not this induce us to reject the literal and grammatical interpretation of the passage, and to fall back upon those forced glosses, \vhich have been devised in order to avoid, instead of fairly meeting and endeavouring to solve, an acknow- ledged difficulty. Bishop Horsley says that he thinks he has , observed, in some parts of Scripture, an anxiety, if the expression Inay be nllo\ved, of the sacred writers, to convey distinct intima- tions that the antediluvian race is not uninterested in the redemp- tion and the final retribution.' It may be conceived, too, he think 1 V 01. I. S rm. XX. ART. IILJ of THE ])ESCE T I TO HELL. 97 that those, who perished in the Illost awful of Goers tenlporal judgments, would, more than any, need and look for the comfort of Christ's presence, and that consolation which His preaching in the regions of the departed would afford to those 'prisoners of hope.' Whether or not such ideas give any clue to the solution of this difficulty, it may be hard to say. But in the saIne author's ,vords, 'Is any difficulty that lllay present itself to the human mind, upon the circumstances of that preaching, of sufficient ,veight to nlake the thing unfit to be believed upon the word of the Apostle ?-or are we justified, if, for such difficulties, ,ve abandon the plain sense of the Apostle's ,vords, and impose upon then1 another meaning, not easily aùapted to the words, though lnore proportioned to the capacity of our own understanding- especially when it is confirmed by other Scriptures that He ,vent to that place? In that place He could not but find the souls that are in it in safe keeping; and in some way or other, it cannot but he supposed, He would hold conference \vith them; and a parti- cular conference with one class n1Ïght be the Ineans, and certainly could be no obstruction, to a general communication with all. If the clear assertions of Holy Writ are to be discredited, on account .of difficulties \vhich nlay seem to the human mind to arise out of tbern, little will remain to be believed in revealed or even ill ,vhat is called natural religion; we must immediately part ,vith the doc- trine of atonement-of gratuitous redemption-of justification by faith without the works of the la\v-of sanctification by the influ- ence of the Holy Spirit; and we must part at once 'with the hope of the resurrection.) 1 I P. 43 6 . The whole sermon desprves careful attention, and should be compared with Bishop )1iddleton, 011 I Pet. iii. IS. It is to be lam nted, that Bishop Pearson, in his most learned and daborate article on the De cent into Hell, should have written less lucidly than is his wont. In more passages than one. unles I greatly misunderstand him. he has contradicted himself. At one time he defines hell as the place of departed spirits, anrl makes our Lord's desc nt thither no more than a passing into the state of the dead. At another time he argues. as if hell me3ut the place of torment, and says that Christ went there to save us from going thither, for which he quotes Tertullian, who, how- ever, mentions the opinion only to con- demn it. See especially p. 25r. See also Henr:'. l\IlJre, Jf !Jstery (if {;odliness, Bk. I. ch. ix. H ART I 0 TJ E I 'T. Vf the Rlsurrection of Oh'riM. De Resu1.'recll:one Ch'ri.sli. CHRIST did truly rise again fro1l1 death, anù took again His Body, with fle h, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's natuI't', wherewith He ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until He retlun to judge all men at the last day. CHRISTUS \"ere a ll10rtuis resurrexit, 8UUln- que corpus cum carne, ossibu , omnibus- que aù integritatem humanæ naturæ per- tinentibus recepit: cum quilms in cælull1 ascendit, ibique re:-;idet, quoad, extremo die, ad judicandos omnes homines rever- SUI'US :.:;it. SECT10X I.--HISTOHY. T HE subjects treated of in this Article 111ay be divided as follows : FIRST, vV e mu t consider Christ's l{esurrection with IIis hun1an Body; SECOXDLY, His Á\..scension, and Session at God' Right Hand; THIHOLY, His Return to J udgDlent. I. II. The first and second of these divisions Dlay historically be considered together. Christ's Resurrection foru1s a part of all the ancient Ureed , ftnd is follo,ved by the Ascension, Session. and Judgment, as in t.his Article. The Sadducees, who denied all resurrection, of course would deny the resurrection of Christ. The Essenes also, though they believed the immortality of the soul, yet did not believe that the body would rise. vVe find as early as apostolic times, that SOnlt' heretics had crept into the Christian Church, who said that' there was no resurrection of the dead' (I Cor. xv. 12), and that 'the resurrection ,vas past already' (2 TÍ1n. ii. 18). Whoever these heretics nlay have been, not long after them the Docetæ, denying the reality of Christ.s flesh, and holding the doctrine of the general malignity of matter, of necessity disbelieved the truth of the resur- rection and ascension of Christ. Augustine tells us, that the Cerinthians held, that Jesus, wholn they took to be a mere nlan, had not risen, but was yet to rise. l Apelles, a disciple of }'Iarcion's, held that, when Christ came do\vn fi'om IIeaven, He formed for Hin1self as He descended an airy and sidereal flesh, but when He } .Jesum hominem tantummodo fnisBe, I verantes.-August. Hæ1.e3. vrII. Tom. n 9C resurrexisse sed resurrecturum asse- VIII. p. 7. SEC. 1.J o ' THE RESURRECTlüX OF CHRIST. 9 arose and ascended into Heaven, He restored this Body to its pristine elements, ,vhich being thus dispersed, His Spirit alone returned to Heaven. 1 Some of the earlier heretics, though otherwise connected \vith the Gnostics, did not absolutely deny either a body or a resur- rection to Christ, but invented strange fables concerning it. Thus, according to Theodoret, Hermogenes believed our Lord's Body to be placed in the Sun. 2 ..And rrertullian rnentions certaiu heretics, who taug-ht, 'that the flesh of Christ was in tbe heavens devoid of sense, as a scabbard or sheath, Christ being withdrawn fraIn it.' 3 1'he Ianichees, like the Gnostics or Docetæ, denying the reality of Christ's flesh, and believing lllatter to be evil, denied Christ's resurrection; but <1:5 they seen1 to have identified Christ with [ithras (æthereal Light, the Sun), there nlay have been SOUle connexion bebveen their belief and that of Herrnogenes mentioned above. -1 rrhe doctrine of Eutyches concerning the Person of Christ, as it was opposed to the verity of His :ßIanhood, so it by iUlplication opposed the yerity of His resurrection: and so Theodoret accuses hirn of considering, that the Godhead only rose from the grave. 5 In later ages, when the controversies arose concerning the pre- sence of Christ in the Eucharist, it has been thought, that divines of the Ronran alid Lutheran comnlunions were led to use language concerning the glorified Body of our blessed Lord, and its ubiquity, which almost savoured of Eutychianism; as though, after His ascension, His hUlllan nature had become so deified, as to have lost the attributes of hUlllanity. and have been transubstantiat.ed into His Divinity. There is little doubt, that the strong language of this ...:\.rticle was designed to oppose so exaggerated an opinion, if such really existed; which lllay be the better seen by con1- paring the ,vords of the -,,-\..rticle with the rubric at the end of the Cornnl union Service. 6 1 Tertullian, De Præsc'l'ipt. ad,;. HO_l'. C. 33. De Resul'r. Cm.nis, c. 5. Epiphan. lIær. XLIV. August. Hæres XXIII. Pear- son, On the Creed. p. 272. Lardner, H iSle of Haettes. Book II. chap. XII. sect. x. King, On the Creed. p. 216. 2 Theodoret, Hæret. Fab. Lib. I. c. 19. Pearson, On the Creed. p. 273. King, p. 26 3. Philaster and Augustine ascribe the same opinion to the followers of Seleucus and Hermias. See Lardner, H ist. of llel'etics. Book II. ch. XVIII. sect. VIII. 3 A.ùfirmant carnem in cælis vacuam sensu ut. vaginam exempto Chri:'>to sedere. De Carne Cll,rÍ;:iti, c. 24. Pearson, 272. King, p. 269. 4 UXpt U1}P.C::pOIl )IallLxaîoL ÀÉl'OUU( lþavTaut(l;ô7} Kat OÙK àÀ 7}8fj TOÛ WTfjpor r1-}lI àlláuTaUtll )c::)'oIlÉvat. Cyril. Hiero- sol. CaÜch. XIV. Suicer, I. 3 r r. 5 Theodoret (Hærel. Fab. Lib. IV. cap. XIII.) says he asserted T'ÌJV 8c::óTTJTa TciJ TálþCfJ 7Tapaôo8Ûuav TETUXTJ^haL T17i ållauTáufwr. See Suicer, VoL I. p. 3 I I. 6 The rubric, after explaining that by H2 100 OF THE HESUI RECTION O:F CHRIST. [AnT. IV. It is not to be concealed that in later tÜnes SOllle persons, of very sound opinions in the nlain, have been offended by the state- ment, that our Lord took into Heaven' flesh, bones, and all things ])ertaining to 11lan's nature;' whereas they contend, that our Lord's Body at His ascension, if not before, becanle a spiritual body, and a spiritual body cannot be said to have' flesh and bones,' \vhich pertain only to a natural body. This objection Inust be considered hereafter; and in the nleantime \ve have only to add, that the language of the Article corresponds with th'lt of the early father . Ignatius says, that 'he kne\v and believed Hin) to be in the flesh after His resurrection.' 1 Irenæus, in one of his creeds, confesses his belief in 'the reception of Jesus Christ into Heaven in the flesh.' 2 In the Epistle of ])alllfisus to Pall linus, the follo,,?ing anathpllla occurs alllongst others: 'If anyone shall not acknow- ledge that Christ is set down at the right hand of the Father, in the same flesh ,vhich He took here, let him be anathema.' 3 Augustine meets the objection, \vhich may be 111ac1e to this doc- trine: 'It offends some,' he says, 'that "e believe an earthly Body to have been taken into Heaven: they understand not ho\v it is said in Scripture, It is so'vn a natural, it is raised a spiritual body.' 4 To the like purpose ,vrites Epiphanins: 'He ascended into Heaven, not divesting Hilllself of His holy Body, but uniting it to a spiritual one.' 5 The fathers indeed held, that Christ's Roòy, after His resur- rection, relDainec1 truly a hUlllan boòy, and ,vas not changed into a spirit, or absorbed into God. 6 'Y. et they held, t.ha.t it ,vas kneeling at the Communion no adoration is intended t:ither to the 'Sacramental Bread and 'Vine, or unto any Corporal Presence of Chri t's natural Flesh and Blood,' adds, 'The natural Body and Blood of our Sa\'ÌourChrist are in Heaven. and not here; it being against the truth of Christ'::; natural body to be at one time in more places than one.' This rubric was fir:5t inserted in thp Second Service Book of Edward VI. It was omitted in the Prayer ]3ook in Elizabeth's reign, pro- bably from a wish not to offend the many persons of Lutheran sentiments then in communion with the Church. It was re- tln'ed in the last revision in the reign of Charles Ir., at the request of the Puritan Divines. 1 'E'}'w '}'àp }JÆTà T1]V åváO"TaO'Lv fV O'apKì aÙTòv olÔa Kat 7rLO"UÍ'W l!wTa. Epist. ad SmY'l"n. c. 3. Pearson, 255. Suicer, p. 10 7. 2 T1]V fJ'crapKoII els Toùt; ol"páVOl1'; ållá)\:YJ1fLII TOÛ XpLO"TOÛ '1 '1O"Oû. Lib. I. c. 2. 3 Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. Lib. v. c. II. King, On the Creed, p. 268. 4 801et autem quosdam offf:mdere quod c"edamus assumptum terrenum corpns in f'ælum. Sed gentiles plerumque philoso- rhorum argumentis nobisculll agere stu- dent, ut dicant terrenum aliquid in cælo esse non posse. N osb'as enim Scripturas non lloverunt, nec sciunt quomodo dictum sit, senlÍnatur W1.pUS animale, s'llrgit cm.. pusspirituale. August. de Fide et Symbolo, c. III. Tom. YI. 157. 5 · AvéÀ8wv Elf} oùpavoÙf} ÈKá8lO"EV Èv Òf L TOU JIaTpÒf} Èv oófv, OÙK o.:rro8ÉlJ.fVOf} TÒ ä'}'LOV O"wp.a, åÀÀà 0" UlIfll wO"ar EÌr 7íVfVp.,aTLK6v. .A 11 ace ph. Tom. II. p. 156. Colou. King, p. 262. 6 Ûi'KOÛV OÙK fÌf} 8EÓT'1TOf} P.ETfßÀ -1;87] Ú(J"LV, åÀÀà Kaì P.fTà T1;v åváO"TaO"Lv à8ávaTov P.fJlfL Kaì lÜþ8apTov, Kaì 8fiar ôofijf} J..LfO"TÓV. O"wp.,a é5l ö}.J.wç T V olKfÍav SEC. I.J UF THE RESFttRECTION OF CHRIST. 101 divested uf all that was nlortal, carnal, and corruptible, and became a Spiritual Body, incorruptible, unchangeable, Ï1npassible. So Theophy]act: 'Uill He lay aside His flesh? God forbid: for as lIe was taken up, so shall He come. But fIe was taken up in the flesh, and with a Body. Now Christ is said to have lived after the flesh, when fIe livec1 subject to natural and blameless affections and feelings-hungering, thirsting, sleeping, working. nut now He is no longer after the flesh, that is, He is freed frolll an such natural ana blalneless affections, having a body iU1passibie Rlld incorruptible.' 1 III. The third head concerns our Lord's return to J udg- lueut. The }larcionites and other Gnostics are supposed to have denied a future J udgn1ent., Their creed was, that God was of infinite grace and mercy; that the Creator, WhOIll they distin- guished froln God, was just; not so God, or His Son Jesus Christ. They were also accused of holding, that the actions of men in the body were indifferent: and this tenet, by implication, is a denial of the J udgrnent. The Ianichees are charged in like lllanner with denying a J l1dgnlent, as they, no dOll bt, did deny a reSUl"- reetion of the body.3 One of the peculiar views of EUlluanuel Swedenborg in nlodern times, and of his followers, who call thernselves the Church of the :K e\v Jerusalem, was that the passages of Scripturè concerning the T udgluent are not to Le literally interpreted. Swedenborg taught that all men are su bject to two opposite influences, one from God and good spirits, the other from evil angels: that according as they yield to one or the other influence, the soul rises or falls. Heaven and hell then are not the result of a Divine appointn1ellt, or of a future J nc1gment, but the necessary conditions of a man, according as he is good or evil. The passages of Scripture concerning the lxoll 7rfpL'Ypaq:rfw. Theodoret in DoJl,O}{- trutionibu8 pcr S!Jlloyismos. Syllogism. IX. Again: OÙ f.J.fTfß"1\"ÝJ81] fÌ 7rllfûp.a rò (Jwf.J.a' uåp ')1àp 7J1I Kat ò(Jn-á, KaL XEÎpf , Kat 7rÓÔf ' TOL')1apoûv KaL f.J.fTà T7}11 åvá- G'ra(HII (JWf.J.a P.ff.J.fV1]Kf. Ibid. S.y 11 og. X. St't' uic r, I. p. 307. 1 Theophyl. ad 2 Cor. v. 16. T7}11 uápKa å7rÉ8fTO: P.1 'ifIlOLTO' W l'àp åVfÀi;(jJ8'rJ, oürw Kat ÈÀfú(Jfrac åVf- "1\"ÝJfþ8'rJ Ot ill (JapKÌ. Kat f.J.fTà TOÛ (J( p.aTor. · . . . ó ôl XpLUTÒ Ka Tà G'ápKa Àt)'fTaL ""1}(JaL, ön- KaTà rà (jJV(JLKà Kat àOtáßÀ7]Ta 7rá8'rJ n'rJ, 7rfLVWV, ôc.þWV, Ú7rVWV. K07rLWV. VÛIl Of, OVKÉn Karà (JápKa' rovrf(Jn, rwv (jJU(JLKWII roúrwv Kat àõwß^ "ÝJrwv à 7r'rJÀ- Àá)''rJ, å7rai:N Kat àKÝjparov uwp.a lxwv. So Theodoret on the same pa::;sage : El ')1åp avròr Of(J7rÓT'rJ XpLUTÒ 7ra81JTðll åXf rò uWf.J.a åÀÀà f.J.fTà rò 7rá8or átþ8ap- rOll roûro 7rf7roí1]Kf Kat à8ávaTOV. See Suicer, 38 above. See King, On the C1'eed, p. 274. a Hey's Lectures, Vol. II. p. 390; and Lardner as ref rred to there. 102 OF THE I ESURRECTIOK OF ('HRIST. [ART. IV. last Judgnlent are to be understood of the end and consummation of the Church ,vhich now is, and the establishment of a purer and better Church, which is called the descent ' of the e,, Jerusalem fronl God out of IIeayen.' SECTION II.-BCRIPTT1RA.L ]->JtOOP. I. A S regards the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, it requires very little argunlent to prove, that Scripture teaches the fact. The truth of such teacbing must be here, as usual, d'ssumed; all arguments on snch subjects being referred to the head of evidence. The concluding chapters of the four Gospels, and the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle. to the Corinthians, contain the fuUest account of that miraculous event. They should be studied together, and with such aids as have' been furnished by 'writers on the harmony of the Gospels. 1 It is to be observed,. ho\vever, that the Resurrection is in nIany respects the keystone of the Christian Faith. On the truth of it depends the truth of the Gospel; for it was to this great fact especially. that the Apostles bore witness, and on its veracity they rested their claims to be heard and believed. Our Lord Hinlself continually foretold it, and so its occurrence became essential to t.he establishment of His truth. According]y ,ve find, both before and after the event, nlost numerous allusions to it in the ,vritings of the Ne\v Testanlent. :For example, 1\Iatt. xvii. 9, 23. Mark viii. 3 I ; ix. 3 I. John ii. 19 ;. x. 17, 18, Acts i. 22 ; ii. 24-36; xiii. 30-37. Ron1. iv. Z 5; vi. 4. Eph. i. 20. Col. ii. 12; iii. I, &c. &c. Yet the historical is scarcely greater than the doctrinal ilnpor- tance of the Resurrection. In Scripture, the life of [t Christian and of the Christian Church is represented as connected '\vith, and depending on the life of Christ, who is the Head of the Church, and the Saviour of the Body.2 The Christian therefore is said to die with Christ, and t.o rise again with Hirn. 3 \nd this connection I Those most approyed of in our own language are Lightfoot: IHackllight, Gres- well, &c. Grpswell's .llm'moni-a E 'al1- gelica, and his five volumes of Disxerta- tions on the subjects, should be in eyery htudent's library. 2 .John xv. 1-7; xvii. 23. Rom. xii. 5. I Cor. vi. 15 ; xii. 27. } ph. i. 22, 23 ; h.. 15. 16; v. 23. CoI. i. 18, &c. 3 Rom. vi. 8. Eph. ii. 5, 6. Col. ii. 12; iii. I. I Pet. i. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 10, II, 14. Rom. viii. I I. I Cor. vi. 14, &c. . SEC. 11.J OF THE RESURREUTIO OF CHRIST. 103 of the Redeerner and His redeelned, is spiritúal here, and bodily and spiritual both hereafter. For here the union of the Christian with Christ is the canse of spiritual life; hereafter the same union shall be the canse of resurrection to life eterna1. The Apostle speaks of the power of Christ"s resurrection as haying been shown already, thus: 'God ,vho is rich in mercy. . . when we \vere dead in sins, hath quickened us together ,,,ith Christ, and hath raised ns up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus,' Eph. ii. 4, 5, 6; and again: 'If ye be risen with Christ, :3eek those things which are above,' Col. iii. I. But he also speaks of the power of the same resurrection, as to be shown hereafter, not only in raising the soul fi'om sin, but the body also ii'OIll corruption. .. If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus fronl the dead a'well in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit ,vhich dwelleth in you,' Ron1. viii. I I. tnd again, 'lIe which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus,' 2 Cor. iv. 14. And thus it is that by virtue of lIi own resurrection, or, a St. Paul calls it, (the power of His resurrection' (Phil. iii. 10), the T.Jord Jesus is to His disciples 'the resurrection and the lifp' ( John xi. 25). II. The second head of this Article concerns the Ascension, and Session at God's Rio-ht Hand. ð 1. The Ascension into IIeaven is related in 1Iark xvi. 19. Luke xxi v. 5 I. Acts i. I - I I . It had been predicted in the Old Testalnent (especially Ps. 1 xviii. I S, which is eXplained by the Apostle, Eph. iv. 8); it had been foretold by our Lord Himself (John vi. 62; xx. 17); and it finally took place in the presence of His chosen disciples. rfhe importance of it to us was typified on the great day of atonement, when the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies once every year. Tbe tabernacle, as is fan1iliarly known, cçnsistec1 of two principal parts. The first was called tbe Sanctuary or holy place, which typified. the world, or Iï:Ore properly the Church on earth; where daily the priesthood ministered, offering sacrifices for the people, and sending up incense, the symbol of prayer and praise. But within the veil, whither no C0111IDOn priest had access, was the Holy of Holies, or the Holiest of all. Into this, once every year, on the tenth day of Tisri, the Fast" or day of atone- ment, the High Priest alone entered. He had 111ade atonelllent for hÌInself, for the sanctuary, and for the people, hy sacrificing n. hullock, a ram, and a goat; and dres ed in the white robes common 10-1 OF THE UESURHEuTIOX OF UHRIST. [ART. IV. to the priesthood, he went with blood of the victims into the most holy place, and sprinkled seven times before the mercy-seat the blood of the bullock and the goat (Levit. xvi.). That this all prefigured the entrance of Christ 'into heaven itself, no\v to appear iu the presence of God for us,' 'we have the word of the Apostle in the ninth chapter of the Hebre,vs. As tbp High Priest was in the comnlon white garments, not in the gorgeous robe of his high priesthood: so Christ ,vent up in the likeness of sinful humanity. carrying our nature \vith Hirn, though pure from the sin of humanity, as the gal"lllent of the priest was holy and ,vhite (Lev. xvi. 4). -L\s the priest took \vith him the blood of the sacrifice, so Christ offered His o\vn Blood, and before the mercy-seat of (i-od pleaded, and for ever pleads, the merits of His Sacrifice, 'seeing that lIe ever liveth to n1ake intercession for us.' 1 :2. The Session at the Right Hand of God, foretold Ps. CX. I. (COIllP. Luke xx. 42), and by our Lord, ) [att. xxvi. 64. fark xiv. 62. Luke xxii. 69, is recorded, :Jlark xvi. 19. Acts ii. 34. Itom. viii. 34. Eph. i. 20. Col. iii. I. Heb. i. 3, 13. I Pet. iii. :2 2. It is hardly necessary to observe, that, ,vhen the Scriptures speak of the Right Hand of ( od they mean thereby, not that God has hands like a lnan, but that as the right hand aUlong men is the place of honour, of power, and of joy,2 so to be at the I-tight IIand of God is to have the place of highest glory, power, and pleasure in the presence of God in Heaven; and to sit has no reference to posture, but implies dignity, sovereignty, and judgment. Christ has ascended into IIeaven, and there He abides. lIe no\v occupies that 1\iediatorial throne, \vhere He is to sit, tin all enen1Ïes be made Iris footstool (Ps. cx. I. I Cor. xv. 25). He had been anointed to His kingly oflice, \vhen the Holy Ghost descended on Hitn at His baptism ( \Iatt. iii. 16. Acts x. 38). He Tindicated His title to the throne, when by 'death He overcame hinl ,vl o had the power of death, even the devil.' He l11ade a further advance to the assumption of I-lis donlinion, when He rose victorious from the grave, and thereupon decl red to His disciples, that 'all power was given Hi m in Heaven and earth' (:\Iatt. xxviii. 18). But it was not until His final exaltation, ,vhen God having 'raised TIinl fronl the dead, set Him at His own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every na.me that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to cOlne,' that (all things having I Heb. viii. ix. x. passim. :! 1 Kings ii. 19. :\fatt. xx\ri. 64. P8. xvi. I I. SEC. I1.J 0[,' THE HESURRECTIOX OF CHRIST. 10;) L en pnt under His feet,' He ,yas 'given to be Head over an things to the Church' (Epb. i. 20. 2 I, 22); 'set upon the throne of His father David' (Luke i. 32); and' there ,vas given to Hinl dominion and glory and a kingdom,' 'an everlasting dOlninion \vhich shall not pass away, and a kingdoll1 which shall not be destroyed' (Dan. vii. 14). 3. The next point for our consideration is, that Christ is said 'to have taken again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things belonging to the perfection of man's nature, where\vith He ascended into Heaven.' It has been seen, in the former Section, "What the fathers appear to have taught on this subject. That Ollr Lord arose frOlH the grave in the same Body in which He ,vas buried, that the same Bcdy \vith flesh and bones, which 'vas laid in the sepulchre a lifeless corpse, was real1Ï1nated and rose again to life on the third day, is plainly and unquestionably the statement of the Evangelists. It was on this fact, that their preaching and their faith rested. It was the assurance of this fact, that convinced St. Thomas of the Divinity of Christ. He had declared, that he would not believè the resurrection, until he had seen in our l.Jord's hands the print of the nails, and had thrust his hand into IIis side (John xx. 2 5 ). ffhat is to say, he required proof, that our Lord's body, ,vhich had risen, was the sanle body which had been crucified; and \vhen our Lord youchsafed hinl this proof, then, and not tin then, he ex- clainled ')Iy Lord and my God! ' (John xx. 25-28). But further, "hen, on one occasion, the disciples \vere asseu1bled, and onr Lord suddenly appeared among them, 'they were terrified and affrighted, and snpposed that the-y bad seen a spirit, but He said unto thenl, , \Vhy are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold Iy hands and feet, that it is I 1Iyself; handle )le, and see; for a spirit hath not fleRh and bones as ye see )[e have. And when He had thus spoken, He showed thenl His hands and His feet' (Luke xxiv. 36-40). Thus it is clear, that our Lord's Body, after He rose fronl the graye, was that BodJ in which He was buried, having hands and feet, and flesh and bones, capable of being handled, and in which He spoke and ate and drank (Luke xxiv. 42, 43; compo ...1.cts x. 4 I). loreover) it appears that our Lord thus showed His hands and feet to I-lis disciples, at that very interview' w.ith them, in which He was parted fronl them and received U P into Heaven. This \vill be seen bv readino- the "' ð last chapter of St. Luke, from verse 3 6 to the end, and conlparing it with the first chapter of the ....\.cts, ver. 4-9; especialIy conlparing JOG {IF THE RESUTIRECTIOX OF CHRIST. [A.HT. IV. Luke xxiv. 49, 50, ,\\,.ith .i\cts i. 4, 8, 9. In that Body, then, ,vhicb the disciples fe1t and handled, and \vhich ,vas proved to thenl to have flesh and bones, these disciples saw our Lord ascend into Heaven; and iUlmediately aft.er His ascent, angels caine and t1eclared to thenl, that that ' saIne Jesus whom they had seen taken np into Heaven, should so conle in like manner as they had seen Binl go into Heaven' (Act.s i. I I). \Jl this connected together seems to prove the identity of our Lord's Body after His resur- rection, at His ascension, and so on, even till His con1Íng tü ..J udgment, with the Body in which He suffereJ, and in ,vhich He ,vas buried; and so fully justifies the language used in the Article of our Church. But because \ve maintain that the Body of Christ, even after J{is resurrection and ascension. is a true hU111an Body \vith all , things pertaining to the perfection of man's nature (to deny which ,, ould be to deny the iIllportant truth that Christ is still perfect )Ian as "ell as perfect God); it by no means therefore follows that we should deny that His risen Eorly is now a glorified, and, as St. Paul calls it, a SpiT'ÍtUa.Z Body. Nay! we have the strongest proofs, that so it is. · Even before His ascension, He is said to have COllle and stood in the midst of His disciples, where the doors were shut for fear of the Jews (John xx. 19). On another occasion, He is said to have vanished out of their sight (Luke xxiv. 3 I). Again, His appearing to thenl, 'in another forin ' ( Iark xvi. 12), and the dis- ciples going to Elnmaus not at once knowing Hill1 (Luke xxiv. 16), seem to show, that there was some change in the appearance, as ,veIl as in the properties of IIis Body. Though His Body had llOt ceased to be the same Body, ,vhich it was before His death, it yet appears to have received some degree of glorification, and t.o have been invested with SOlne Erpernatural qualities. But, after His ascension, we have St. Paul's distinct assurance, that the Body of Christ is a glorious, is a spiritual Body. In I Cor. xv. ,ve have St. Paul's assertion, that in the resurrection .of all nlen, the body shall rise again, but that it shall no longer be a natural body, but a spiritual body; no longer a corruptible and vile, but an incorruptible and glorious body. 'It is sown in cor- ruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is so,vn in ,veakness; it is raised in po\ver: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.' " Flesh and blood cannot inherit tbe kingdon1 of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold I sho\v you a nlystery ; SEC. IT.J O}"' THE RESLRI{EC1'IO OF CHRIST. ]07 've shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.' . :r"'or this corruptible nlust put on incorruption, and this nlortal must put on Ï1nmortality' (I Cor. xv. 4 2 - 53). And this change of our bodies, from natural to spiritual, is expressly stated to be bearing the image of our glorified Lord-the image of that heavenly man, the Lord fronl Heaven (vv. 47-49). So again, the glorified state of the saints' bodies after the J{esurrection, which in I Cor. xv. had been called the receiving a spiritual body, is, in Phil. iii. 2 I, said to be a fashioning of their hodies to the likeness of Christ's glorious boc1j ; who shall change our yile body, that it llla) be fashioned like unto His glorious Body.' 1 'Ve Blust therefore conclude, that though Christ rose with the same Body in ,vhich He died, and that Body neither did, nor sbaH, cease to be a human Body; still it acquired, either at His resurrection or at His ascension, the qualities and attributes of a spiritual, as distinguished by the Apostle froll1 a natural body, of an incorruptible as distinguished from a corruptible body. It is not perhaps given us to know the exact meaning of the tern} 'a spiritual body.' , \Ve know not yet what we shall be;' and so we do not exactly know what He is, whom we shall be like. It may be better to leaye in the obscurity in which Scripture has left it, this great and glorious lllystery. And 've shall err on neither side, if we maintain that our Blessed Saviour still con- tinues our l\lediator in Heaven, perfect in His nature of God, and perfect in His nature of l\Ian; but with His humallllatl1re, which on earth, though sinless, was lllortal and corruptible, now raised to glor) and immortality and incorruptibility; His natural having become a spiritual, IIis corruptible an incorruptible body. 2 ] Xon ita dictum est, quasi corpus vertatur in f'piritnm. et piritu:s fiat: quia et nunc corpus nostrum quod animale dicitur, non in animam n nmm est et anima factum. Sed f'pirituaTe corpus in- telligitur, quod ita spiritui subditum est, ut cælesti habitationi conveniat, omni fragilitate ac labe terrena in cælestem puritatem et stabilitatem mutata atque conver a.-August. De Fide et Sym,bolo. c. YI. Tom. YI. p. 157. There may be a difficulty in rt con- ciling this doctrine, which is the plain doctrine of Scripture and the primiti '.e Christians, with the Iangllag-e of the rubric at the end of the Communion Service ({uoted above. If they be at variance, the langua.ge of a not yery carefully-worded rubric, adopt.ed not without ome heJ';i- tation by the reforlller , ought not to be pressed: but it is plain. that the writers of the rubric did not mean by the wor.]R 'natural body' to con'"ey the same idea as St. Paul attaches to the term in I Cor. X\'. The doctrine, which they meant to teach, was only that we must not COll- f'ider the manhood I)f Christ changed into His Godlwad. So St. Augustine: X oli itaque duùitare ibi nunc esse hominem Christum J esum unde venturns est . . . in padem carnis forma et snb ta.ntia: cni profecto immortalita.tem dedit, natura.m non abstulit. Secnndum hane formam llon putandus est ubiqne diffusus. Caven- dUlll est enim, ne ita divil1itatem adstrn- amu" hominis, ut verit.atem corporis aufp- ramus.-Ad Dard. L"pist. 187, Tom. II. p. 681. 108 OF THE HESURRECTION OF CHRI T. [..\lff. IV. III. The third head of the Article is on the Judgment; In ,v h ich \ve may consider, I. rrhe Agent or Person who shall judge, Christ. 2. The object to be judged, viz., aU men. 3. rfhe action, judgnlel1t. 4. The tin1e, t.he last day. I. ...-\.s regards the Agent; it is, in the first place, clear that Uod shall be 'the Judge of all the earth' (Gen. xviii. 25). (P . lviii. I 1.) lIenee the day of Judgment is called' the day of God' (2 Peter iii. 12)-' the great day of Ahnighty God' (Rev. xvi. (4). Daniel sa,v ' the thrones cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit ' (Dan. vii. 9); and St. John saw 'the dead great and snlall stand before C od,' for judgnlent (I ev. xx. 12). Now, \vhen God is thus generally spoken of, we nlust either understand God tbe Father, or the Blessed Trinity. And ill the general, it is true to say, that God shaH j ndge the earth, or, that God the Fatber shall judge the earth. But then, as God made the ,vorlds, but it ,vas by G.od the Son; as God hath pur- chased the Church, but it ,vas by the death of IIis Son; so the Father Himself' j uc1geth no 111aU, but hath committed all juc1gnlent unto the Son ' (John v. 22). ' He hath given Him authority to execute judgn1ent, because He is the Son of Ian' (John v. 27); , He hath appointed a day, in the which He 'v ill judge the world in righteousness by that :ßlan 'VhOlU He hath ordained' (Acts xvii. 3 I ); 'lIe will j nc1ge the secrets of all men by Jesus Christ J (I onl. ii. I 6). Accordingly, the Judgment, when fully described, is ever re- presented as the coming of the Lord Jesus. It is called the' day of Christ' (2 Thess. ii. 2). ' \Ye must all appear before the j udg ent- seat of Christ' (2 Cor. v. 10). ,rrhe Son of Ian shall come ill the glory of His Father, with His Angels' (l\Iatt. xvi. 27; xxiv. 37; xxv. 3 r ; xx\ i. 64). The' same Jesus ,vhich was taken up into Heaven, shall come again in like Inanner as He went into Heaven' (Âcts i. I I). 'lIe has been ordained of God to be Judge of quick and dead' (..\cts x. 42). He says of IIirnself, 'Behold! I come quickly, and :ßly reward is with 11e' (ltev. xxii. 12). 2. The objects of the judgment are all TIlen, \vhether those living at the tinle of Christ's con1Ïng, or those already fallen asleep-' the quick and the dead.' In the fin;t Epistle to the rrhessalonians (iv. I 5- 17), the Apostle describes the a,vful scene of our Lord's con1Ïng to save His people: 'The Lord Himself shaH descend from IIeaven with a SEC. I1.J OF THE RESlTRRECTIOX OF CHRIST. 109 shout, with the voice of the Archangel and the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we \vhich are alive and remain' (i.e. \vhoever of Christ's servants 111ay then remain alive on the earth) , shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.' In thf\ like manner he says (I Cor. xv. 5 I, 52), "V e shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a n1oment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and \ve shall be changed.' ..A.ccordingly it is said (2 Tim. iv. I), that 'the Lord Jesus Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing;' that He ' was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead' (Acts x. 42. Compare :JIatt. xxv. throughout, .Tohn V. 25, 28: &c.). 3. The Judgment itself, which is the action the great Judge is to perfonD, is fully described in several of the passages already quoted or referred to. he twenty-fifth chapter of St. Iatthew., especially, under a variety of inlages) sets forth the terrors of the great day of the Lord :-the ten virgins that meet the Bridegroom -the servants .with their various talents-the Lord with all nations brought before HiIn, dividing them as a Shepherd the sheep from the goats. III all these passages) and many besides, it is expressly said t hat the J ndgment itself shall be ' acc01"ding to (j01"ks.' On this subject the following references IDay be consulteq, and will be found full and express. Job xxxiv. I I. Ps.lxii. 12. Provo xxiv. 12. J ere xvii. 10; xxxii. 19. ::\Iatt. xvi. 27; xxv. 3 I -46. John v. 29. Rom. ii. 6. 2 Cor. v. 10. CoI. iii. 24, 25. Rev. xx. 12 ; xxii. I 2. It need nly be added, that Judgnlent according to ,vorks is a doctrine of Scripture not opposed to jnstification by faith. That we cannot be justified by the ll1erits of our own works is a plain statmnent of St. Paul (Rorn. iii. 20; viii. 3. Gal. ii. 16. Eph. ii. 9, &c.). But if we be rene\ved Ly the Spirit of Goà, and transformed in the spirit of our minds; if Chr-ist be in us, and the pirit of God dwell in our hearts; then, being dead to sin, we can no longer live therein (Rom. vi. 2). Sin win not reign in our Inortal bodies (Rom. vi. 12); but 'the Jaw of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus \vill have made us free from that law of sin' (Ron1. viii. 2), which would naturally reign in us; and so, , the righteous- ness of the la\v will be fulfilled in all \vho walk not after the flesh , but after the Spirit' (Rom. viii. 4). "r e are especially \varned not to be deceived on this head; for' he that doeth righteousness is 110 OF THE H,ESURTIECTION OF CHRIST. [ART. IV. righteous; . and' he \vho comrnitteth sin is of the devil.' , He that doeth not righteousness is not of God' (I John iii. 7- I 0). 'rhus then the mark of distinction between the children of God and the children of the devil is this-that righteousness is practised by the one party, sin by the other. Anti hence it is but likely, that .Judgment, \vhich is to distinguish Christ's servants from His enemies, should be conducted according to the works of every man, which shall · be brought to light, whether they be good or evil.' The just indeed shall be rewarded, not because of the Inerit of their works, but because of the atonernent and righteousness of Christ. ì et still their o\vn good ,yorks \vill be the test of their sanctification, and the proof before men and angels, that they are living melubers of Christ and regenerated by His Spirit; whereas the wicked ,yorks of wicked nlen will justly consign theln to death and danlnation. 4. It renlains but to speak of the tinle of Christ's conling to J udgn1ent-the last day. The general descriptions of the J udgillent already referred to (e.g., )Iatt. xxv. l{ev. xx. I 1-- 13, &c.), sufficiently show, that it will not take place until the time \vhen all present things shall pass away. All mankind, quick and dead, are represented. as brought before the judgnlent-seat, and the just are sent to an eternal re\vard, the wicked to an eternal punislllnent. Accord- ingly, St. Paul says, it shall be ' at the last trump' (I Cor. xv. 52), and St. Peter represents 'the heavens and the earth \v hich now are,' as 'reserved unto tire against the day of Judgment.' The heavens shall be dissolved, and the elements shall 'melt with fervent heat;' yet there shall be for the redeemed' a ne\V heaven and a l1e\v earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness' (2 Pet. iii. 7- 13). But though the time is thus accurately marked, as 'the last day,' the close and consummation of the present state of things; yet \ve are continually told, that it is utterly impossible for us to know ho\v soon that day may come or how long it may tar y. It was not for our Lord's n10st favoured disciples' to kno\v the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power' (Acts i. 7). rrhey and \ve are bid to 'watch, for we know not ,vhat hour our Lord cometh' (1fatt. xxiv. 42: compare also 11att. xxv. I 3. l\Iark xiii. 33. Luke xii. 40. 2 Pet. iii. 9, 10). The disciples were taught to be constantly expecting our Lord; and accordingly they spoke and wrote, as though they thought that He might come at any time. (See Rom. xiii. I I. Phil. iv. 5. EC. I1.J OF THE RESURREUTIOX OF CHRIST. 111 I Thes8. iv. 15, I ï. Heb. x. 25. James v. 7, 8, &c.) ì et still they were fully aware, that He might delay His con1ing, they knew not ho\v long; and the importance of this uncertainty, St. Paul earnestly in1presses on the Thessalonians (2 Thess. ii. 1-3); and St. Peter still Inore fully inculcates on all men (2 Pet. iii. 4, 8-10). There is one passage, however, especially remarkable on this su bject. ..LL\.fter our Lord had foretold the destruction of J erusalenl, and assured His disciples that the generation then alive should not pass away till that His prediction was accomplished ( Iatt. xxiv. 34. lark xiii. 30); He goes on to tell thetn, that though He thus gave them to kno\v the time when He would execute His judgment on Jerusalem, yet the day of IIis final judgment (which they had confounded with the destruction of '!T erusa]enJ, :ThIatt. xxiv. 36) was unknown to n1en and angels. Nay, according to the record of 8t. Iark, our Lord said, 'Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels 'which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father ' ( rark xiii. 32). It has been seen, that in His human nature our Lord was capable of knowledge and of ignorance. He was perfect :ßlan, as wen as perfect God, and He grew in 'wisdom, as well as in stature (Luke ii. 52). In that nature then, in which He was capable of ignorance, fIe, when He was on earth, kne\v not the coming of tLe day of God. Though He is Himself to come: yet as Ian He knew not the day of His own coming. This is indeed a great nlystery, that that Ianhood, which is taken into one Person with the Godhead of the Son, should be capable of not knowing ever)T- thing, seeing that God the Son is onJniscient. But it is scarcely 1110re inexplicable, than that God the Son in His l\Ianhood should be weak, passible, and mortal, \vho in His Godhead is omnipo- tent, impassible, and immortaL 1 If we believe the one, we can adn1Ìt the other. 1 The explanation of Iark xiii. 3 2 , gi yen ill the text, is consonant both with sound principles of interpretation anù with sound theology, and has been the explanation of the most ancient Christian father . , AlIOpw7rÎpw,; roíJTo Efp7JKf. Kal rò ainoll rov o([rw,; EÌp7JKÉlIaL lXH rò EÜ^OìOP; f1rfL- ôàp 'Yà.p ð.vOpW7ro<; 'Yf-YOVfP, åvOpw7rwlI ÔÈ rDLOII rò å'YlIOÛlI, WU7rfp rò 7rfLpâv Kat rà If^^i1.. ÔLà rOÛTO Kal rr;lI l1.)'JlOLaIl rwv åvOp,{)7rWV w<; åpOpW7ro<; "}1f)'OVW<; È7rL- ôEÍKPvraL, fpa ôdfv ön å^7JOw<; åVOpW7rLlIOll tXfL uWjLa.-Athanas. Epist. ad Sera- pion, Tom. I. p. I7':!.. See Suicer, s. Y. KpluL<;, \". 4, 6. ARTIOLE 'T. Of tlie floly Ghost. De SpÚ'it-u Sancto. THE Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one suhstance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God. SPIRITr:S Sanctus, a Patre et }"'ilio pro cedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio essentiæ majestatis et gloriæ, verus ac æternus Deus. SECTIO I.-IIISTOI1Y. rt1HE subjects of this Article to be treated on are-I. The Divinity; - - II. The Personality; III. The Procession, of the Holy Ghost. Those early heretics, ,vho denied the Divinity of the Son of Goil, seen1 generally to have disbelieved the Personality of the Holy Spirit, and to have looked on Him not a'3 a Person, but as an efficacy, po,ver, or emanation from Goù. This heresy appears to have been as early as Simon ragus himsel f, and his inlmediate follo,vers, the Gnostics. The like opinion would, of course, naturally prevail anlong those speculators, who afterwards acquired the name of Sabellians, such as Praxeas, Noetus, Sabellius, Beryllus, Paulus Salllosatenus. 1 The Arians, on the contrary, appear to have taught, that the Spirit was a separate Person froDl the Father and the Son, but that He ,vas, as they held the Son to be, but a creature. Nay, as they held the Son to be a creature created by the Father, so they are said to have taught, that the Spirit was created by the Son, and hence called hin) KT!(J'fJ.(l KT[(J'fJ.UTOÇ, the creature of a creature. 2 "ßlace- donius especially was considered the head of the Pneumatomachi, or Í111pugners of the Divinity of the Spirit, being reckoned al110ng the semi-Arians, orthodox about the person of the Son, but a believer in the creation of the Holy Ghost. He is said to have caned tbe Holy Spirit the servant or minister of God. 3 This heresy of Iacedonius ,yas conden1ned by the second general council held at Constantinople, ] See the account of these hert'tics, Art. I. I ; and the authorities referred to in the notes. See also Pearson, On the Oreed, Art. YIII. p. 322, note. Suicer, Vol. II. p. 774. Tò ä)'LOV I1vfÍJjLU KTlup"u KTlup"aTo,; Øá(HV fivaL. ] piphan. llær. LXIX. 56, p. 7ï8, Colon. : Snicer, II. p. 775. A synod, held nnder Dmna!':l1s at Rome, decreecl ii TL'; f(?rOt TÒ JIvfÛ,J.La TÒ ä)'LOV 7rol7JjLa 1} OLà TOÛ TZoû )'f)'fv7}(JOat åváOfjLa É(JTW. Apud Theodor. I. v. c. II. Sec Pearson, On the C'l"eed, p. 316, note. Suicer, as above; and the account given, Art. I. S I. :::5ee also L:1rdner's TVorks, Vol. n . pp. 113, 174. 3 Suicer, II. p. ï74. SEC. I.] OF THE HOLY tlHOST. 113 A.D. 3 8 I, which added to the Nicene Creed the ,voras, 'The Lord, and Giver of life, \vho proceedeth from the :Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.' Of the fathers, Origen and Lactantius have been charged \"ith unsound doctrines concerning the Holy Ghost. It is not easy to arrive at a just conclusion concerning the statements of Origen, owing to the fierce disputes "hich arose concerning them, the obscurity, and the nlutilated condition of his ,vritings. He has been accused of questioning \vhether, as 'all things 'were made by' the Son, so the Holj'" Spirit nlay not have been included ill 'all things,' and therefore created by the Son. The accusation, however, appears to be unjust, and to have been grounded on some inaccuracy of language and obscurity of reason- ing, not on really heretical statement .l Jerome more than once charges Lactantius with virtually denying the personality of the Holy Spirit, by referring His opera- tion, through a Jewish error, to the Person of the Father or of the SOIl; 2 an heretical belief, which, he says, prevailed among many. One of the strange forms, which heresy is said to have assumed, was that which is attributed to 1Iontanus-viz., that he gave him- self out to be the Paraclete-i.e., the Spirit of God. Nay, it is even said, that he had his disciples baptized in his own name, as the third Person of the blessed Trinity; 3 though it appears to be 1 The book, in which Origen is espe- ciallyaccused of having spoken blasphemy concerning the Spirit of God, is the first book of the llfpì 'Apxwv (De P1.incipiis) Èv 7rÌ\fÌcJ'ía ßÀaCJcþ7JfJÆL, TÒV ,.Û.lI Tí.òv íl1rò TOÛ IIaTpò 7rf7rOL7JCJ(}at Àéywv, TÒ òÈ IIvfûp.a Ú7rÒ TOÛ Tloû. Photius, Biblioth. cod. viij. \Ve ha \'e this book only in the translation of Ruffinus, who in his pro- logue to it says, that he has omitted parh of the book, which had been foisted into it by heretics, and supplied the omissions from other portions I)f the genuine works of Origen. Jerome (Lib. I. ad'l.,..Ruffinurn) accuses Ruffinus of having mistranslated Origen, and he himself undertook to give a new translation. All but fragments of the latter are lost. If Ruffinus has gi yen at all a fair representation of his author, the following would show, that Origen annot have been very heretical concern- l?g the Holy Ghost: N e quis sane exis- lmet nos ex eo quod dixirnus Spiritum Sanctum solis sanctis præstari, Patris vero t>t J!ilii beneficia vel inoperationes per- \'emre ad bonos et malos, justos et injus- I tos, prætulisse per hoc Patri et Filio Spiritum Sanctum. vel majorem ejus per hoc asserere dignitatem: quod utique vaIde inconsequens est. Proprietatem namque gratiæ ejus operisque descripsi- mus. Porro autem nihil in Trinitate majus minusve dicf'ndum est, quum unius Divinitatis Fons Verbo ac Ratione sua ten eat universa, Spiritu vero oris sui quæ dignaf;unt anctificatione sanctificet, sicut in Psalmo Scriptum est .crbo Domini cæli firmati sunt, ct SpÚ.it.u O'l.is Ejus omnÍ8 ârt1J,Se01. m. Origen, Dc Principiis, Lib. I. cap. 3. num. 7. Compo nUIn. 2. 2 Hoc ideo quia multi per imperitiam Scripturarum, quod et }'irmilial1us in oc- tavo ad Demetrianum epistolarum libro facit, asserunt Spiritum Sanctum sæpe Patrern sæpe:Filium norninari; etcum per- spicue in Trinitate credamus, tertiam Per- sonam auferentes non substantiam Ejus essevolunt, sed nomen.-Hieron. in Epist. ad Galatas, cap. IV. Tom. IV. part I. p. 268. See also Lardner, V 01. IV. p. 60. 3 See Bingham, R.A. Book Xl. ch. III. 7. I 114 OF THE HOLY GHOST. [.A.RT. V. doubtful, \vhether Montanus really meant, that he \,-as an incarna- tion of the Spirit, or only that the Spirit dwelt more fully in him than in any former Inan. l Indeed, to some it appears that the lVlontanists were in their creed Sabellians, and that they thought that the Spirit \vhich animated J\Iont.anus ,vas but an emanation from God. 2 A denial of the Personality of the Holy Ghost, and a belief that He was but an influence or energy, seem to have been general in later times \vith the Socinians, and may be considered as a neces- sary consequence of a denial of the doctrine of the Trinit.y in general. But the most celebrated controversy, ,vhich has ever arisen concerning the Holy Ghost, was that, \vhich had reference to His Procession, and which led to the famons schism between the Eastern and vVe:stern Churches. rrhe Council of Constantinople (A.D. 38 I) had inserted in the Creed of the Council of Nice (A.D. 325) the words 'proceeding fronl the Father' (TÒ ÈK TOÛ IIaTpòç ÈK7rOpfVÓ'þI.ElJOV); and the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 43 I) had declared that no addition should be made to that creed thenceforth. Accordingly the Greek fathers uni- formly declared their belief in the prGcession of the Holy Ghost froll1 the :b'ather. The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, having regard to those passages of Scripture ,y hich speak of the Spirit -of Christ, and of the Spirit as sent by the Son, continually spoke of the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the 8011. 3 The Greek :Fathers, indeed, ,vere ,villing to use language approxin1ating to the words of the Latin Fathers, but shrank from directly asserting the procession froln the Son. Thus they spoke of the Holy Ghost as 'the Spirit of Christ, proceeding from the Father, and receiving of the Son.' 4 1 :\Iosheim, Cent. II. Pt. II. ch. v. 23; also Dc Rebus ante ConstantinutJn lJI. Sect. II. 6ï; Ep. Kaye's Tert , Lllliau 2nd Edit. p. 22: Lardner's Heretics,Book II. ch. 19. J\lanes, Mohammed, amI othel'S beside them, ha ve profes ed to be the Paraclete promised by Christ to Hi::; disciples. By the Paraclete l\Iohamnled did not mean the Holy Gho t. He was misled by a. rendering which seemed to have for its original 7rEPLKÀVTÓ'S, a word of like Sell:3e with the Arabic rohauJmed, meaning " praised" or " renowneù." 2 See Bingham. as above. 3 Spiritus quoque Sanctus cum pro- cpdit a Patre et :Filio, non separatur a }>atre, non separatur a :E'ilio.-Ambros. De Sp. S. c. x. Non possnmns dicere I quod Spiritus Sanctu8 et a l'ilio non pro- cedat, neque enim frnstra idem Spiritus et Patris et Filii SlJiritus dicitur.-August. De Trin. Lib. IV. cap. 20. See Pearson, p. 334, note. St. Augustine, more clea.rly and funy than any before him, asserted the procession from the Son. Hence the modern Greeks charge him with having in vented it. See \Vaterland J Tforks, VoL IV. p. 246. Oxf. 1823. -I IIJlcû,ua XpLCfTOÛ, IIJlcû,ua lIaTpò; Ù\'TropEvó,uCJlOJl, hat TOÛ Tioû Àá,ur3 aJloJl . Epipha.u. Hæres. LXIX. TOIll. 1. p. 783. Colon. 1682. See Suicer, I. 1070; Pear- son, p. 324, note. Similar or stronger language used 011 this subject may be set:n in the following: El TOí.JlVJI 7rapà TOÛ IIaTpò'S ÈK7rOpCÚf.TaL Kaì. fK TOÛ l,uoû cþ1J()ì.. Ò KÚpLOS 7\f]ý;cTac, OJI TpÓ7rCJI oùôEÍs f'}'JlW SEC. 1.] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 115 AnJ it has been inferred, that nlany of the earlier Greek writers held, fiS did the Latins, a real procession froIll both the Father and the Son, although they ,vere not willing to express themselves otherwise than in the words of the Creed. Theoùoret, in the fifth century, appears to have been the first of the Greeks, \vho brought the question out into bold relief; for, taking offence at some expre::;sions of Cyril, who, speaking of the Spirit, bad used the wordsl6loV TÒ lIvEvßu TOÛ XPl(JTOÛ, he declares that, if by such an expression he llleant 'that the Spirit derived His Being either from or through the Son,' then the saying was to be rejected as blasphemous and profane; 'for ,ve believe the Lord when He saith, "the Spirit which proceedeth frolll the Father," and we believe St. Paul in like 111anner saying "we have not received the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit ,vhich is of God." '1St. Cyril, not directly replying to Theodoret, at least not entering fully upon the doctrine of the Procession, there appears to have been little controversy about it in the East, until attention was roused to the subject by the conduct of SOllle portions of the 'Vestern Church. The question baving been for some time discussed, whether or not the Spirit proceeded froln the Son as ,yen as frolll the Father, the Churches of France and Spain not only asserted such to be the case, but actually added to the Creed of Constanti- nople the words Filioque (' and the Son '), and so chanted thè Creed in their Liturgies with the clause Crediìnus et in SpÙ'ituln Sanctu1Jt Dorninu11l ct vÍ1;ificat01'e1ì , ex PatTe Filioque pl'ocedentem. 2 In the early part of the ninth century Pope Leo III. was appealed to, and decreed in a Synod held at Aquisgranum, tLat no such addi- tion ought to be l1)ade to the creeds of the Church. Nay, so ilnportant did he deem a strict adherence to the symbols in their original form, that he caused the Constantinopolitan Creed, in the very" words in which it had been penned at the council, to be rÒlI IIarlpa fl p.,Tj ó "flò , oùóÈ ròv'Tiòv d p.T] ó ITar17P' OiiTW ro^p.,(;)(J'L ^f)'fLlI (f. ro^fJ.w O"vÀ^I)'E'Lv) oùóÈ rò IIvE'Í;p.a fl J1.1; ó 'riò f oõ ^apßávE'L, Ka! Ó I1ar1;p f ou ÈK7ropdlE'raL. Epiph. Jlæres. LXXIY. 10, Tom. I. p. 898. Colon. - wTj óÈ' öÀo ó eE'Ò , OUKOVV SW1; lK {"w7} ó Tlò , f)'W )'áp E'ÌP.L 1] à^1jOE'La Kaì. 7] wTj, rò óÈ ä)'LOV ITJlE'ÍJp.a 'Trap' åp.ØorÉpwv, IIJlElJp.a iK IIJlE'úp.,aTo . Hæres. LXXIV. 7, Tom. I. p. 895. 1 Theodoret, Reprehens. Ânatlt. Cyril., Tom. IV. p. 1717, c. Sirmondi, Paris, 154 2 . Pearson, On the Creed, p. 325, note. Suicer, 1. 1070. 2 In very early Latin Councils this addition of the Filioque is made: as in :the first Council of Bracara, A.D. 41 I, and in the Third Council of Toledo, A.D. 5 8 9, where he ClIllstantinopolitan Cl'eed is recited. (Bingham. Bk. x. ch. IV. S 16.) The Council of Tuledo was that, which first ordered the COJlstantinopolitan Creed b) be used in the Liturgy of the Spanish Church. (Bingham, ibid. S 7.) 'Vith reg-ard to the insertion of the words Filioque in the Confession of the Council of Bracara, it now appears that they are not genuine, but fuisted into it in later times. See 'Yaterland, Hi.atriarch of Constantinople. Between him and Leo IX., Bishop of Rome, a violent contest arose, both on the 3ubject of their respective juris- dictions, and concerning the doctrines in dispute between the two great branches of the Church. Cerularius \vrote, in his own name and that of Leo Bishop of Achrida, a strong letter to John Bishop of Trani in Apulia, charging the Latins ,vith various errors. Leo therefore snmmoned a council at ROIne, and excomn1unicated the Greeks. Constantine 1\fonomachus, the Emperor, in vain strove to quench the flame of discord; and though legates were 1 Pearson, On the Creed, p. 325; Io- sheim, Cent. [x. Pt. II. ch. HI. 18. 2 The famous Ratramn: whose book on the Eucharist exercised sù important an influence on the Engli h Reforma.tion, was a principal champion of the Latins in this dispute. l\Iosheim, Cent. IX. Pt. II. cb. III. 27-32 ; Pearson, as above. SEC. I1.J OF THE HOLY GHOST. 117 sent from Rome to Constantinople, instead of endeavouring to allay the strife, they solemnly excommunicated Cernlarius, Leo oÎ Achrida, and their adherents, who, in their turn, ill a public council, excommunicated them. l Thus arose the schislll between tbe Eastern and "\Vestern Churches, ,vhich has never since been healed. S[CTIO II.-SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I. II. THE first and second heads of this Article concern the Divinity and the Personality of the Holy Ghost. Both these \vere treated under the First Article, and it is not necessary to repeat the arguments here. It may be enough to add that among the strongest passages of Scripture in proof of these doctrines will be fOllIld the following :- Divinity. Iatt. xii. 32. Åcts v. 3, 4. I Cor. iii. 16; com- pare I Cor. vi. I 9. PeTsonality. l\Iatt. xii. 32; xxviii. I 9. John xiv. 16, 26 ; xvi. 8, I 3. .Acts Y. 3. 4. Rom. viii. 26. I Cor. xii. I 1. Epb. iv. 30. III. The third division of the subject is concerning the Pro- cession of the Holy Ghost; the Article after the Latin versions of the Constantinopolitan Creed and the Creed of St. -ithanasius, asserting that the Holy Ghost proceeds fron1 the Fat her and t he Son. rrhe distinction between the three Persons in the G oc1head was et forth in treating on the First Article. The relation of God the Son to G"od the Father, how that from all eternity ( od the Son derived His being frOll1 God the Father, by a proper but ineffable generation, was et forth in the Fn ST part of the Second .Article. Now, whereas it is certain that the Scriptures ever speak of the Second Person of the Trinity as the Son of God, and as begotten of the Father, so it is equally certain, that they speak of the Spirit as cmning fm'th or p1 oceedin[J from the Father, but never as begotten of Him. The early Christians, observing this distinc- tion, cautiously adhering to the language of inspiration, and strivinf! to imbibe the notions conveyed by it, ever taught, that it 1 :\Iosheim, Cent. XI. Part. II. chap. III. S 9- 11 . 118 OF THE HOLY GHOST. [ART. , . ,vas peculiar to the Father to be underived and un begotten; to the Son, to be begotten; to the Holy Ghost, to be proceeding. l 10 That the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, scarcely needs to be proved. In l\Iatt. x. 20, lIe is called' the Spirit of the Father.' In ltonl. viii. I I, lIe is called' the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus frorn the dead.' In John xiv. 26, 'the Comforter, 'which is the Holy Ghost,' is promised, as to be sent' by the Father in Christ's narne.' In John xv. 26,. 've read of the' Comforter. . . even the Spirit of truth "\vhich proceedet.h from the Father.' Compare also l\Iatt. iii. 16. Acts v. 9. I Cor. ii. 10, I I, I 2, 14; iii. 16; vi. 19, &c. .....-\.ccordingly there never has been any doubt anlong those who adnlÍt the doctrine of the Tioinity, that as the Son is begotten of the Father, so the Spirit pröceeds from the Father. 2. But though the doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father is thus unquestionable; it has been seen, that the Greeks doubted the proprietj of saying, that the Holy Spirit pro- ceedeth from the Son as ,veIl as frOlll the Father. Thev doubted 0/ it, as it seems, merely because in John xv. 26, it is said that c the Spirit of truth proceec1eth from the Father,' and there is no passage of Scripture, "\vhich, in the sanle express terlllS, says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son. Yet if we except this one expression of John xv. 26, every other expression whatsoever, from "\vhich we infer, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Fat.her, is used in like manner concerning His relation to the Son. For example: (I) Is He called 'the Spirit of God,' 'the Spirit of the Father,' 'the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus?' In like manner He is called 'the Spirit of Christ,'-' the Spirit of the Son,' 'the Spirit of Jesus Christ.' Thus \ve read, Rom. viii. 9, 'If any man have not the Spirit of Christ;' w"J.ere it is evident the Apostle means the Holy Spirit of God spoken of in the preceding sentence. Gal. iv. 6, 'God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son.' Phil. i. 19, , The supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.' I Pet. i. I I, 'The Spirit of Christ,' which ,vas in the prophets. And so surely is this the case, that the Greeks themselves were even willing to call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son; con- fessing that 'He proceedeth from the Father, and is the Spirit of the Son.' And hence many of our divines, and even divines of the 1 "IðLov rraTpò f.J.Èv 7] å'}'fJlv?]ula, Tloû -Greg. X az. Orate XXIII. Tom. I. p. 422. õi 'ÝJ Î'fVV7JCJL , rrVfÚf.J.aTO õÈ 7] lK7rfP.Ý;L . Colon. Suicer, VoL I. p. 1069. SEC'. 11.] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 119 Church of Rome, haye concluded tbat their difference on tbis point from the 'Vestern Church was but in m.odo loqucndi, in manner of speech, not in fundamental truth. l (2) But again, do ,ve infer, that the Spirit proceedeth front the Father, because He is sent by the Father, and is breathed forth into the Prophets by the Father? Still, in like manner, we read, that the F;ame Spirit is sent by the Son, and was by Hin1 breathed upon His Apostles. Thus He says Himself, John xv. 26, 'The Comforter, whom I will send unto you from the Father.' John xvi. 7, 'If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I ,vill send Him unto you.' And in John xx. 22, after He had risen from the dead, 'He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receiye ye tbe Holy Ghost.' Xow, our principal reasons for concluding y that the Spirit of God proceeas from God the Father are these-viz., that He is called the Spirit of the Father; that as the Father sends the Son, who is begotten of Hin1, so He sends the Spirit; and that He sends Him especially in that manner, ,vhich in Scripture is caned inspiring or breathing forth. From all this ,ve conclude that, like as the bon is begotten, so the Spirit proceedeth of the Father . Yet the Scriptures set forth the relation of the Spirit to the Son, in all these respects, in the very same language, in which they set forth the relation of the Spirit to the Father. Hence we conclude, that, as the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, so He proceeds from the Son. And though we may question the ,visdom of adding the words Filioque to a creed drawn up by a General Council, without thp authority of a General Council; we yet do not question the 1 Laud, Confe1'ence 'Lcith Fisher, p. 19 (Oxf. 1839), Seet. 9. who quotes Damas- cene (Lib. I. Fid. Orth. c. 11.) as saying, X on ex Filio, sed Rpiritnm Filii esse dicimu . N ec possumus dicere quod Spiritus anctus et a Filio non procedat: neque enim frustra. idem Spiritus et Patri!'; et Filii Spiritus dicitur. Xec video quid aliud significare voluerit, cum sufflans in faciem discipnloruffi ait, Accipit(' Spiritum Sanctum. X eque enim flatus ille corporeus, cum sensu corporaliter tangendi procedens ex corpore, substantia Spiritus Sancti fuit, sed demoustratio per congruam significa- tionelll, non tantum a Patre sed et a :Filio procedere Spiritum Sanctum, &c.-Au- gust. De Trinitat. Lib. n.. cap. xx. Torn. VIII. p. 829. De utroque autem procedere ic docetur, quia ipse Filius ait, .De Patre procedit. J:t cum resurrexit a mortuis et apparuisset discipulis suis, insufHavit et ait, Accipite SpÙ'itum Sanctum, et Enm etiam de Se procedere ostenderet. Et ipsa est rirtlls quæ de lllo exibat, sicut legitur in Evangelio, et sanabat omnes.- Ibid. Lib. xv. cap. XXVI. p. 998. See also, De Ciritate Dei, Lib. XI. c. XXIV. Tom. VII. p. 290; where St. .A.ugu tine, showing that the Holy Spirit is a Person, doubts, if He can be called the goodness of the Father and the Son; but observing that the Father is a Spirit and holy, and the Son is a Spirit and holy, and yet the Third Person of the Trinih' is called the Holy Spirit of the Father ai'Hi of the Son, he supposes that the Third Pez-son may be called the Spirit both of thp Father and of the Sou, and the Holiness both of the Father and of the Son, but yet a substantial Holiness, consubstantial with both. 120 OF THE HOLY GHOS [ART. V. truth of the doctrine conveyed by these words, and which, we believe, was implicitly held by the divines of the Eastern Church, though they shrank from explicit exposition of it in terms.! 1 Thegreat objection which the Eastern Church makes to the Filio'lue is, that it impliés the exi tence of two àpXaì. in the Godhead: and, if we believe in õú6 livapxot, we, in effect, believe in two Gods. The unity of the Godhead can only be 1Il3.intained by acknowledging the Father to be the sole' ApX7J 01' IT1]'Y7] (h6- T'fJTOS, who from all eternity has com- municated His own Godhead to His co- eternal and consubstantial Son and Spirit. This reasoning i generally true. But, as the doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit from the Jfather and the Son pre- supposes the eternal Generation of the Son from the Father; it does not follow, that that doctrine impugns the Catholic belief in the :Mta 'ApX'Í]. A R '1 1 I ell E V I. Of the Sl{fficiell('Y o.fthe Holy Scriptures for Sal-1:ation. HOLY Scripture containeth all thingt\ ne- cessarv to salvation: so that whatsoever is not U read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of :my man, that it should be helieved as an article of the :Faith. or be thought requisite neces- sary to alvation. In the name of Holy Scripture we do understanJ those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt ill the Church. Of the Names ancllVumber of the Canonical Books. Genesis. The Second Book uf Exodus. Chronicles. Leviticus. The First Book of N umbers. Esdras. Deuteronomv. The Second Book of Joshua. U Esdras. Judges. The Book of Esther. Ruth. The Book of Job. The First Book of The Psalms. Samuel. The Proverbs. The Second Book of Ecclesiastes, or Samuel. Preacher. The First Book of Cantica, or Songs of Kings. Solomon. The Second Book of Four Prophets the Kings. Greater. The First Book of Twelve Prophets Chronicles. the Less. And the other books (as Hierome saith), the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following: The Third Book of Baruch the Prophet. Esdras. The Song of the The Jfourth Book of Three Children. Esdras. TheStoryofSusanna. TheBook of Tobias. Of Bel and the Dra- The Book of Judith. gone The rest of the Book The Prayer of 1\la- of Esther. nasses. The BOúk of \Vis- The First Book of dome l\Iaccabees. Jesus the Son of The Second Book of Sirach. 1\Iaccabees. All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them for Canonical. . De Dh'inis Scriptw'is, '1 uod 8ufficiant ad Salutem. SCRIPTURA sacra continet omnia, quæ ad salutem sunt necessaria, ita, ut quicquid in ea nec legitur, neque inde probari potest, non sit a quoquam exigendum, \1t tanquam articulus )1'idei credatur, aut ad salutis necessitatem requiri putetur. Sacræ Scripturæ nomine, cos Canonicos libros veteri:::; et novi Testamenti intelli- gimus, de quorum authoritate in Ecclesia, nunquam dubitatum est. .De NO'lninibus et lVumero librorum sacrle Canonicæ Scripturæ Vetc1'is Testamcnii. Genesis. Secundus Liber Pa- Exodus. ralipomen. Leviticus. PrimusLiber Esdræ. N umeri. Secundus Liber Es- Deuteron. dræ. J osuæ. Liber Hester. J udicum. Liber Job. Ruth. Psalmi. PriorLiberSamuelis Proverbia. Secundus Liber Sa- Ecclesiastes velCon- muelis. cionator. Prior Liber Regum. Cantica Salurnonis. Secundus Liber Re- IV. Prophetæ ma- gum. jores. Prior Liber Parali- XII. Prophetæ mi. pomen. llores. Alios autem libros (ut ait Hieronymus) legit quidem Ecclesia, ad exempla vitæ, et formandos mores: illos tamen ad dogmata confirmanda non adhibet, ut ::5unt : TertiusLiberEsdræ. Baruch Propheta. Quartus Liber Es- CantiCl1ill triumPH. dræ. erorum. Liber Tobiæ. Historia Susannæ. Liber Judith. De Bel et IJracone. Reliquum Libri Oratiu 1tIanassis. Hester. Prior Lib. .:\Iacha- J iber Sapientiæ. beorum. L"Þer J esu filii Si- SecundusLiber ::\Ia- rach. chabeorum. N ovi Testamenti omnes libros (ut vulgo recepti sunt) recipimus, et habemuK pro Canonicis. 122 THE SUFFICIEXCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [..:\Jrf. VI. TIllS is the first ..A.Tticle of the Church, ,yhich can be caned controversial. In some respects it might have seemed natural to have put it as the first Article; as in the Helvetic Confession the :first Article is De Scriptura Sancta, ve'ro Dei Verbo. But our reformers wisely put forth, in the beginning of their confession of faith, those doctrines on which the Church universal for fifteen centuries had agreed, and \vhich are the foundations of the Chris- tian faith. Accordingly the first five .A..rticles treat of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption of the world, the Sanctification of Christians, and the Judgment of aU men. Unity on these points ,vas of old times considered to constitute Catholic Christianity; and by declaring her orthodoxy on these Catholic doctrines, the Church of England, in the yery front of her confessions, declares herself orthodox and Catholic. This done in the first five Articles, she, in the next three, treats of the Rule of Faith, the Scriptures, and the Creeds deduced from them. The present Article, as it stood in the forty-two Art.icles of 1552, lacked all the concluding part concerning the Canon of Scripture and the Apocrypha, and treated only of the Sufficiency of Scripture for Salvation. The latter part was added in I 562. The original Article also contained a clause \vhich was omitted in 1562. After the \vords, '\yhatsoever is neither read therein, nor Inay be proved thereby,' the ,vords were added, , although it be sometime rpcei'oed oj the godly, and p1'ofi[able JOT an orde1' and cOlneUness, yet no man ought to be constrained to believe it as an article of faith,' &c. As the Article now stands, it treats of several distinct points -viz., Scripture and Tradition, the Canon of Scripture, the A pocrypha. On all these points demonstration and history are intimately connected; history in this case being a material part of demonstration. It will therefore be better not to separate them. In the following sections then I propose to consider, FIRST, The Sufficiency of Scripture for Salvation ; SECONDLY, The Canon of Scripture; rrHIRDL Y, The true value of Tradition, and the reading of the Apocrypha. SEC. 1.J j1'OR SALYATIOX. 123 SECTI0 I.-THE SUFFICIE Cl OF SCRIPTURE FOR S...t\LV ATlüX. ' j "HAT \ve nlay see. the orce. of the ,yords of the ... rti?le on this important subject, It WIll be necessary to consIder, \vhat opinions were opposed by it. Those opinions were the doctrines of the Church of Rome concerning Scripture and Tradition. It. will be 'Well therefore to beain bv setting the statelnents of the ü 01 LJ Church of Rome and those of the Church of England one against the other; and when we see wherein we differ, \,e may then proceed to show which is in the right. Now the decrees of the Council of Trent sufficiently express the doctrines of the Church of Rome. In that Council certain A_rticles, professedly taken from the writings of the Lutheran divines on the subject of Scripture, \vere discussed in the third session. And first, the fathers of the Council agreed to ('ondenln the opinion, 'that all .c\.rticles of the Christian faith, necessary to be believed, 3,re contained in the Holy Scriptures, and that it is sacrilege to hold the oral Tradition of the Church to be of equal authorit, with the Old and New Testaments.' 1 The forn1al decree 01 . of the Council was drawn up in the fourth session, in the year I 546, shortly after the death of Luther, and six years before the putting forth of the forty-two A.rticles of our own Church in I 552. This decree declares, that 'tbe truth is contained in the 'lcritten books, and in the 'llnw1'ittcn traditions, which having been received by the Apostles, either from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the dictates of the Holy Spirit, were handed down even to us; , and that the Council' receives and venerates with equal freling of piety and 1'C1X1'encc all the books of the Old a.nd ew TestalIJent, since one God was the Author of them both, and also the tradi- tions, relating as well to faith as to 1norals, as having, either fronl tbe mouth of Christ Himself or from the dictation of the Holy Ghost, been preserved by continuou succession in the Catholic Church.' 2 1 Sarpi, Hist. of the Co'uncil of 'l'rent, translated by Brent. London, 16 7 6 , p. 14 1 . 2 Saerosaneta æcumeniea et generalit\ Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata, præsidt->ntibus in ea t>i ùem tribus Apostolieæ sedis leaatis hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos propo ens: ut, amblatis erroribu , purita.s ipsa Evangelii , in Eec1esia. eOUSf'r\'etur : quod promissum ante per prophetas in Seripturis sanetis Dominus noster, J ef:US Christus, Dei Filius, proprio ore primurn promulgavit. deinde persuos Apostolos tan quam fonteul omnis salutaris veritatis et morum disei- plinæ, omni ereaturæ prædieari jussit; perspiciens hane veritatem et diseiplinam eontineri in libris scriptis et sine RC1.ipto 124 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. Exactly corresponding váth this decree of the Council are the statements of the great Roman Catholic divines. Fur example, Bellarmine says, 'frhe controversy between us and the heretics consists in two things. The first i8, that we assert, that in Scrip- ture is not expressJy contained all necessary doctrine, whether concerning faith or morals, and therefore that, besides the written ,yord of God, there is moreover needed the un written word-ie., Divine and A.postolical Tradition. But they teach, that all things necessary for faith and lnorals are contained in the Scriptures, and that therefore there is no need of the unwritten word.' 1 Now these stateu1ents are not easily misunderstood. The IJhurch of Rome, both in her Council, and by the mouth of her most eminent divines, asserts, that Scripture does not contain all that is necessary for faith and morals; but that there is need of a traditional doctrine, an unwritten word, .which is handed down by unbroken tradition in the Church, and .which she, the Church of Rome, esteems with the same feelings of piety and reverence, ,vith which she receives the Holy Scriptures. It is not 111erely an Hermeneutical Tradition-i.e., certain interpretations handed down from early times, "Which are useful for clearing up and explaining obscurities in Holy 'Vrit; nor is it an Ecclesiastical Tradition-i.e., Tradition concerning Church discipline, rites, and ceremonies; but it is a traditional revelation concerning doctrine, .in matter::; of faith and morals, which is not to be found in Scripture, and .which is equally certain, equally divine, and equally to be embraced, and reverenced .with Scripture itself. Scripture and tradition are parallel, equal, and equally venerable sources of doctrine; and one ,vithout the other is not sufficient for salvation. Such being the statement of the Church of Rome, we may the better understand the statement of the Church ûf England. Her statelnent is, as expressed in the Article of 1552, that ho,v- ever traditions may be ' sometimes received by the faithful as godly, traditionibus, quæ ab ip ius Christi ore et A postolis acceptæ, S piritu San cto dictante, quasi per ntaIlUS traditæ ad nos usque perventrunt; Orthodoxol'ul11 pat rum ex- ernpla st:>cuta, omnes libros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti, CUIU utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, necnolt traditlones ip!'\as, turn ad fidem, tum ad mores perti- nentes, tam quam vel ore tenus a Christo vel a Spiritu Sancto Jictatas, it contin.ua successione in Ecclesia Catlwlica conservu- ta:;, pari pietatis uffectu ac 1'e'l:crentia suscipit ac vencratur.-SeRs. JY. Ca,n. I. COllC. XIV. 746. 1 Bellarrnin. De Yerbo Dti non Scripto, Lib. IV. cap. III. Controversia igitur inter nos et hereticos in duobus consistit. Pri- mum est, quod 110S asserimus, in Scrip- tl1ris nOll contilleri expresse totaIll doc- trinam necessariarn sive de fide si ve de nwrilms; et proinde præter Vel'bulll Dei scriptum, requiri etiam Verbum Dei non scriptum, id est, di vinas et Apostülicas traJitiones. At ipsi docent, in Scripturis omnia contineri ad fidem et mores neces- saria, et proinde non es e opus uno Verbo non scripto. SEC. 1.J FOR SALVATION. 125 and profitable for order and cOlneliness,' yet' Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; , and no man ought to be con- strained to believe as an article of faith, or repute requisite to the necessity of salvation, 'whatever is neither read therein nor 1nay be proved thereby.' The degree of value which the Churc!1 of England has assigned to Tradition, 'which, she said, in the forty-two Articles, was' some- times received by the faithful as godly, and profitable for order,' we shall see in the third section. Here 'we have to sho,v, that, as regards articles of faith, and a to necessity of salvation, nothing ought to be required of any "man' which is not read in Scripture, or may be proved thereby.' Scripture, according to the Church of England, rightly inter- preted, contains all that is necessary to save the soul. From it, by fair and logical inference, Dlay be deduced everything which ought to be imposed as an article of faith. It win be seen here- after, that sne òoes not despise nor underrate the light of learning, nor the light of antiquity, but that, as the ground of appeal, she maintains the supremacy, and the sole supremacy of the written \vord of God. 1 No\v in proving the soundness of the .....\.nglican, in opposition to the Romish position, we may proceed in the following order. 'Ve nlay prove-I. That Scripture is in favour of it ;-11. That Reason is in favour of it ;-111. That the Primitive Fathers are in favour of it. 1. Scripture is in favour of the doctrine of the Anglican Church-viz., that the written ,vord of God is sufficient for sal- vation, containing all necessary articles of faith, and rules of life. On nlost questions this argunlent is the most conclusive that can be brought; but on the Sufficiency of Scripture, "ore are not so likely to find Scripture speaking plain]y, as on many other points. It does indeed bear ,vitness to itself, and yet its witness is true. But though both parties have appealed to it, yet neither party has been satisfied, that, on this particular point, its high autho- rity will exhaust the subject. 1 'Unto a Christian man there can be nothing either more nec :"sary or profita ble than the knowledge of Holy Scripture, forasmuch as in it is contained God's true 'Vord, setting forth His glory and also man's duty, and there is no truth nor doc- trine necessary for our justification and everlasting salvation, but that is, or may be, drawn out of that fountain and well of truth.' -Beginning of the llomily on Holy Scrípt'lu'e. 126 TH SUFFICIEXUY OF HOLY SCRIPTUUES [,A.HI'. VI. I. To take, first of all, the arguments, which have been alleged from Scripture, as agctinst its own suftìciency: 'we read, that our Lord said to His disciples (John xvi. 12), 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear thern now.' Therefore it is inferred, that there ,vas need of further instruction, orally delivered to the Church, and handed down by tradition, beyond what our Lord revealed, \vhilst on earth. But the true meaning of the passage is eXplained by the next verse, which promises that, , when the Spirit of truth was COllIe, He should guide thelll into all truth.' It ,va.s to the teaching of the Spirit, by whom the Apostles were afterwards inspired, that our Lord baùe therll look forward, for the filling up of w.hat His own personal teaching had left deficient. The substance of that teaching of the Spirit, ,ve believe, is preserved to us in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse; not in unwritten tradition. Again, it is said, 'There are also nlany other things which Jesus did, the 'v hich, if they should be 'written everyone, even the world could not contain the books that should be written' ( John xxi. 25). Therefore Jesus taught many things not set down in Scripture: we cannot believe that He taught anything super- fluous: therefore there nlust be sOll1ething neces ary, besides what \ve read in Scripture. Where are we to seek for this? Of course, in un written tradition. To this we reply, that doubtless every word spoken by our blessed Lord was nlost valuable. lYIanv of those ,vords indeed art-' 01 not in Scripture; no! nor yet in tradition: for it never yet was pretended, that oral tradition had preserved every word our Sa,"iour uttered. So that, if this argulllent proves anything, it proves too much; for it proves not only the insufficiency of Scripture, but the insufficiency of Scripture and tradition together. What we say is simply, that so much of Christ's divine teaching, and of the teaching of the Spirit to the Apostleð, is set down ill Scripture, as is necessary for salvation, and for the proving of all necessary articles of faith. It is no argument against this, to say, that many things, \vhich our Saviour said, are not in Scripture. The same answer may be given to the argument drawn from the fact, that, during tbe forty days between His resurrection and His ascension, our Lord 'spake of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God' (Acts i. 3 ). We know indeed, that IIis speeches then are not set down in Scripture. But ,ve equally kno\v, that they are not to be found in any other tradition. And we do not know, that there ,vas anything spoken by Him then, which it is SEC. I.] FUR SALVATIOX. 127 necessary to our salvation that we should know, over and a10ve what we have recorded in Scripture. It is further urged, that St. Paul cuts short a controversy, not by reference to Bcripture, but by appeal to the customs of the Church (I Cor. xi. 16): 'If any luan seelll to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.' It was a matter of ceremony-viz., that a wOlnan's head should be covered jn the house of God: and assuredly the Church of England fully admits, that 'the Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies' (Art. xx.), and that, 'whosoever, through his private judgment breaks the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, ought to be rebuked openly , (Art. xxxiv.). But this is nu proof, that doctrines of the faith rest Oll an authority not written. It should be sufficient to atisfy any caviller concerning f01''lJlS, that the Churches of God have, or have not, a custom or a forIn. But it is not likely, that the Apostle would for doctritw refer to the Church's customs, when he himself ,vas infallibly guided by the Spirit of God. But St. _Paul, it is saiù, actually does refer to ordinances and traditions, and forms .of words, and a (wpositurn to be guarded; all which are evidently oral traditions of the Church. ' Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remen1ber ll1e in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you,' I Cor. xi. 2. '0 Tin10thy, keep that which is cOlnn1Ïtted to thy trust,' I Tim. vi. 20. ' Hold fast the fornl of .sound words, which thou hast heard of nle, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing, which was committed unto thee (T)ì 1 KaÀ11V 7f"'ùpaBJíKl}JJ), keep by the Holy Ghost, which dwelleth in us,' 2 'rirn. i. 13, 14. 'The thillgs that thou hast heard of nle arllong many witnesses, the sanle conl- mit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also,' 2 Tim. ii. 2. :From all t.his it is urged, that the Church and the bishops had ordinances intrusted to then1, and doctrines conlll1itted to thenl, \vhich they ,vere to watch and guard, and hand down carefully to others. But all this we readily admit. Timothy was taught by St. Paul: and the doctrine, which he had so learned, was a sacred deposit, which he had carefully to guard, and to teach to those con1111itted to his care: especially to the clergy under him, and the bishops who were to succeed hinl. Before the Scriptures of the New 'restament had been written, or at least collected, this must have been a most important principle; for so only could the torch of truth be kept alight. And even after the New Testament had been written, and was in the hands of all men; it was doubtless 128 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. most important, that bishops and Churches should be rightly and soundly instructed in the truth and right meaning of the Scriptures, find should guard thenlsel yes and their flocks against perverting the truth and falling into error. But there is not therefore any reason to apprehend, that Timothy or the Church had learned any other doctrines, besides those contained in the Holy Scriptures, or that the sacred deposit comrnitted to their charge was any other than the aggregate of Christian doctrine, which they had been taught catechetically, and which they were to keep from defilement and error by the Holy Ghost which d\velleth in us. We well kno\v that the possession of the Scriptures, as a source of truth and as a final appeal, does not supersede the necessity of Christian education, and sound oral instruction in the faith: and to every person, now-a-days, instructed by Creeds and Catechisms in the true doctrine of Christ, it Inight be said, 'Keep that good thing which was committed unto you; , 'Hold fast the form of sound \vords.' Yet all this instruction and this sacred deposit may be deducible from Scripture, and virtually contained in it. But further, it is said, that the Thessalonians are actually bidden to ' stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle,' 2 'rhess. ii. 15. Therefore the Apostle bids them attend, not only to Scripture, but to tradi- tion also. But the word t?'adition means probably nothing more than sontethi'ìl:J delivered, the doctrine of ora?' faith delive?'ed to 'Us. And there being two ways of delivering doctrines to us, either by \vriting or byword of mouth; it signifies either of them indifferently. , I IapáðocTlS', tradition, is the sanle with ðó7fJ-a, doctrine, and, 7rupaðLðóvuL is the same with ðLðda-KEW,' say the grammarians; and the 7iapaðOeEla-a ?rLa-TLS' in St. Jude, 'the faith once delivered,' is the same ,vhich St. Paul explicates by saying, 7rapaðóa-HS' åS' JðL- / (;Xet}TE, 'the traditions,' that is, 'the doctrines ye were taught.' .... nd St. Irenæus (Lib. III. ch. iv.) calls it a tradition apostolical, t.hat 'CLrist took the cup,' and said, 'it was His Blood,' and to believe in one God, and in Christ, 'who ,vas born of a Virgin,' was the old tradition; that is the thing, which ,,,,as delivered, and not at first 'written, , which was kept by the barbarians.' 1 It may be added, that the very words of St. Paul, in the passage no\v alluded to, prove in themselves, that tradition, according to him, was not necessarily oral tradition, or tradition floating in the Church: for he calls his own Epistles, or the doctrine contained in 1 Jer. Tay1or, Dissuasivefrorn Popery, Part II. Ek. I. Sect. 3. SEC. I.] FOR SALVATION. 129 theIn, t1'adition-' t1'(/ditions, which you have been taught either by word or by our Epistles.' What therefore the Apostle here enjoins on t.he Thessalonians is sinlply, that, as he had taught them by preaching, and as he had enjoined thenl by letter, so they should believe and live. This instruction, thus received, was the tradition to which he alludes. But it by no Ineans follows, because, before Scripture ,vas completed, the Apostles gave oral and epistolary instruction, to which their hearers were to attend, tha.t therefore, after the Scriptures were completed and collected, there must be left, floating about, a stream of traditional truth, which is not to be found in those Scriptures, thus completed and collected. Before the Scriptures of the "New rrestament were written, there Illust of course have been need of tradition, or instruction by word of mouth; and sllch instruction coming from inspired Apostles was, no doubt, of as llluch value as what they committed to writing. "But the question is, whether they delivered anything essential to our salvation, which they, or Ollle of them, did not subsequently put down ill writing, so that it should be carefully preserved, and be a constant \vitness in the Church. Certainly neither this, nor any of the before-cited passages of Scripture, prove that they did. 1 Once more it is said, that Christ proloised to His Church, 'The gates of Hell shallllot prevail against it,' )latt. xvi. 18 ; 'I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,' :ßlatt. xxviii. 20 ; "Vhatsoever ve shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.' 01 - [att. xviii. 18, &c.; and tha.t these promises prove, that a certain infallibility should reside in the Church, which both makes it a sure keeper of the truth, and renders all its traditions and decrees of sacred authority. But, we may reply, that, even if we concede, that the whole Church, fully represented, might so claim the pro- mise of Christ to be present with it, and to guide it, that it should not faU into errors in Inatters of faith; yet it follows not, that it ,vould be authorized to preserve or to decree any truth which cannot be proved from Scripture. ..lncient councils settled many points of faith, and drew up creeds and confe sions; but they professed them to be accordant with, and capable of proof from, Scripture. ..A..nd though the Church is a keeper and a witness of Holy Writ, and may expound Scripture for the instruction of her children, 1 The passages from Scripture, which have be n quoted in the text, are all alleged by Bellarmine, De rerbo Dei non Scripto, Lib. IV. On the proper meaning of the word 1"radition, see Jeremy Taylor as -above; U ssher, .Ans vcr to a Jesuit, ch. II. ; Bp. Patrick's Discourse about Tradition, in the first V 01. of Gibson, Prcser1.!atil)(; against Popery, p. 190 ; Van l\1ildert'g Bampton Lectures, Sermon III. K 130 THE SUFFICIE CY OF HOLY SURIPTüHES [AUT. \PI. and in such expositions 111ay look for the pron1ise of Christ and the guidance of Iris Spirit; it by no nleans follows, that she has authorit.y to add to 'the faith once delivered to the saints,' or to set up any standard of doctrine, besides that \vritten ,vord of God, which is entrusted to her, and to which she is to look as the source of all heavenly wisdoIll and truth. 2. .A.nd here we may dismiss the argulnents fronl Scripture, which have been brought to prove, that Scripture does not contain all doctrine necessary for salvation and godliness. 'Ve proceed to consider those passages, which appear to prove the direct contrary -viz., that all thing , of necessity to be believed, are contained in, or n1ay be deduced fronl, the written ,vord. The following are amongst the texts commonly alleged: 'Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought fronl it.' Deut. iv. 2. 'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.' Ps. xix. 7. , Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of JHe.' John v. 39. 'Fron1 a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to n1ake thee wise unto salvation. . . . . All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that. the man of God nlay be perfect, throughly furnished untu all good k ' r l " ... 'VOl' "'s. 2 nll. HI. 15-17. rrhese passages appf1{O to prove the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures. But it is argued against this inference, that, \vith regard to the first two passages, they speak of God's commandrnents and Goel's la\v, ,vhether written or unwritten.! The third passage may be, and very likely ought to be, translated, not' search' but , ye search the Scriptures.' And aJl the passages relate to the Old Testament, llot to the N e\v ; for llf'ither could the Jews search the Ne\v Testament Scriptures, nor could TÜnothy have learned the New' Testament from his childhood; since none of the books. of the New rfestament 'vere then written. If therefore tllese passages prove the sufficiency of Scripture; they prove that the Old Testa- ment ,vas sufficient without the Ne\\T, and therefore prove too nluch. The passages indeed prove, that all which comes from God is 1 Bellarmine iudeed argues that the passage from Deut. iv. 2 applies only to the ull/w'I.itten wo'rd: 'the word which I speak unto you.' The word however is not 'speak' as he renders it, but i1 . ?? 'c01nmand,' as our translators give it.- Bellarmiu. De Verbo Dei non Scripta, Lib. IV. SEC. 1.J FOR 4-\.L VATIOX. 131 perfect and very necessary for instruction; but do not fully prove that nothing but Scripture is necessary. Another argument is drawn fl"Orli the following passages: , Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a <.leclaration of those thino-s which are most surelv believed o w amonlfst us . . . . it seemed O'ood to me also . . . . to \vrite unto b 0 thee in order, nlost excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.' Luke i. 1-4. 'These are written that ye IlliglIt believe that ,Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G-od: and that believing ye n1Íght have life through Iris Name.' John xx. 3 I. These texts do certainly seem to show, that the object of \\Titing the Gospels was expressly, that men ulight not be left to the uncertainty of traditiùn. lany had taken in hand to set forth an account of the Gospel history; St. Luke therefore was llloved to comnlit it carefully to writing, that no yague accounts might n1Ïslead Theophilus, but that by the written word he nlight ' know the certainty of those things, wherein he had before been catecheti- cally instracted.' Very sÍlnilar to this is the language of St. Peter: , I will endeavour that ye nla) be able after n)y decease to have these things always in relllelubrance,' 2 Pet. i. 15. It is true, that these three passages only apply to the Gospels of St. Luke and St. J OL11, and tIle Epistles of St. Peter, and perhaps with them to the Gospel of St. Iark; but they nevertheless give the reasons for \vriting Scripture, and are, as far as they go, a strong presumption against the yagueness and uncertainty of oral, and in favour of the certainty of written tradition. Again, ignorance ana error in religion are traced to ignorance of Scripture: 'Y e do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God; latt. xxii. 29. The peculiar privilege of the J-ews is said to be that' to them were cOlnmitted the oracJes of God,' Rom. iii. r, 2. In Inatters of doubt, aU appeals are made to Scripture. The Beræans are praised, because they . searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things \vere so,' Acts xvii. I I. So under the Old Testament it was' to the law and to the testiInony : if they speak not according to this \vord, it is because there is no light in them,' Isai. viii. 20; \vhere the law and the testimony Inust lllean the law of Ioses, and the testimony of God given by the prophets. Lastly, there is special reprobation of all traditions, which add to Scripturö or take from it. The passage in the end of the K2 132 THE S{)]<"FICIE CY or HOl.Y SCRIPTURER [ART. VI. Apocalypse (' If any Ulan shall add unto these things, God shall add unto hin1 the plagues that are written in this book,' &c., Rev. xxii. 18, 19) 111ay indeed apply only to that book itself: and to the uncorrupted preservation of its text. But we cannot have read the Gospel, without seeing ho\y lnuch those ,vho used J e'wish traditions are ceusured and condenlned: .; vVhy do ye transgress the com- Jnandment of God by your tradition? ' , In vain they do worship le, teaching for doctrines the cOilllllandnlents of men.' ::\fatt. xv. 3, 9; conlp. :ßlark vii. 7-13. It is true, the traditions spoken of \vere Jewish, not Christian traditions. But the principle ,vas much the saIne. The rLnrisees clainled such traditions as divine. They professed, that they ,vere the unwritten ,vord of God, handed down ii'orn the time of Ezra, through t-he doctors of the La,v, and the lllelnber::s of the G-reat Synagogne. They did not deny the value of the written ,vord, but added the un\vritten traditions to it. These they con idered, not as corrupting, but as cOlupleting the truth. Yet our Lord declared, that they 'made the word of God of none effect by their tradition ' ( Iark vii. I 3). .L nd thus we Inay fairly infer, that our Lord condelnns the general principle of making any addition to the \vritteJ;l word, by doctrines professedly handed down from father to S011. 'Ve see, at least, no difference in principle between the oral traditions of the Jewish, and the oral traditions of the Christian Church. II. "\\T e come next to show, that reason is in favour of the Anglican, in opposition to the Roman rule on this subject. I. The English Church does not hold, that unwritten truth is less true than written truth: and if \ve could be certain, that any unwritten doctrine came from Christ and His Apostles, \ve should receive it with the san1e reverence that we pay to the written word. But the reason why \ve rest our faith upon the written ,vord, is this: we know that it came from God; but we have no certain kno\vledge that any ulllvritten tradition did. The former we kno'w to be the mid-day light, the other 1nay be but an ignis fatnus, and lead us into error. " And let it once more be clearly understood, that the question is not, what value there lnay be in the testimony of the Early Church to certain doctrines of the faith; not, how far early tradi- tions may be useful for the interpreting of Scripture; not, ho,v far \ve Inay be right to adhere to the primitive example, in matters of discipline and ceremony, even those for which we have no Scriptural authority; but it is, whether besides, parallel with, and independent SEC. 1.J FOR SALVATrOX. 13: of the Scripture, there is in the Church a dodri/ a t,'adito, a doctrine handed down fro III Christ or His Apostles, of equal authority with Scripture, and demanding equal respect. As h:ls just no\y been said, when we search for authority in favouT of any doctrine, we can ten at once where to go, if Scripture be our rule. But if we have to depend 011 something besides, where must we look? The forn1er rule is contained in a small compass, is easily accessible, and with proper assistance may be understood. The latter is to be searched for through man\" folio oJ volumes; is, at last. not certainly to be found: and is at least a difficult as Scripture itself to be understood and explained. Or, if it be said, that it is not in tbe writings of the fathers, but in the stream of Church tradition, a deposit which was entrusted to the Church and has never been lost by her; we can only reply, that this is eyen less certain than traditions which may be searched out from ancient writings, and froll1 them proved to have anciently existed. Tradition by word of mouth is a thing proverbially nn- certain. In peculiar conditions of society, or for a short time, it Inay be sufficient for the preservation of truth. But it is evidently unfitted for a body like the Catholic Church; ,vhich was to pervade all nations, extend throughout aU ages, weather the storm of igno- rance and barbarisnl at one time, and bear up against the scorching and \vithering glare of learned infidelity at another. The very fact that the Scriptures were written, and the history of their writing, seelll to prove their sufficiency and perfection. ""Then first revelation \vas given to man, lllen's lives were so long that there was little danger lest the light of truth should be lost. Adam, Seth, Enoch, )Iethuselah, Noah, were in fact all but con- temporaries. Seth the son of Adan1 lived to within fifteen year of the birth of Noah. Tradition therefore may have sufficed for them; and yet we have reason to believe, that, even then, the faith was much corrupted. Again, the sons of oah n111st haye been contell1pOrary with Abrahanl, to whom another revelation was given; yet Abraham's fathers had become idolaters. \.nd in the few generations from Abrahaln to :ì\Ioses the faith again appears to have been corrupted, if not lost; although, from the death of J oseph to the birth of l\Ioses not seventy years had passed. Thus, when the world and the Church were under the most favourable circunl- stances for preserving tradition of the truth unimpaired; it pleased God to leave the world, with occasional revelations indeed, but mostly with only traditional knowledge of the truth. Yet, even so, such knowledge was soon corrupted. and easily lost. After that, 134 THE SUFFICIEK(IY OF HOLY CnIPTCRES [ART. "\T1. God gave a fuller revelation to Ioses, and enjoined, that it should be c01l1n1Ìttec1 to ,vriting; and the book of the La'v ,vas deposited in the most sacred place of the Sanctuary, and most carefully guarded and watched, as of inestimable value. Thenceforwarcl \vhen any great prophet \vas sent to Israel, though, during his Jifetime, he oral1y taught the people, yet his words were ever cOlnmitted to ,vriting, that they ll1ight be preserved after his death. N or do ' le kno,v anything nov{ concerning the teaching of any of the prophets, save only what is handed down to ns, not by oral, but by written, t.radition-viz., the Scriptures of the Old Testalllent. Iost sin1Ìlar ,vas the case \vith the Christian Church. ...At first, while our Lord and His ....\ postles were on earth, their per- sonal teaching, and that of those taught by them, might have f'ufficed. Yet, even then, errors and perversions ,vere creeping in ; and if they bad not committed the substance of their teaching to writing, the false traditions of the J udaizers, the Cerinthians, or the Gnostics, lnight have COlne do"' n through the Church, instead of the true traditions of the disciples of Christ. But \\e learn fronl ancient ,vriters, that 'what the Apostles preached by word of n10uth, they comn1itted, or caused to be con1mitted, to writing, lest the 8U bstance of their preaching should be lost. I If tradition coulu1Ïtted to the Church had been sufficient to preserve the truth; then the \vriting of the four Gospels, and of the other parts of the X ew Testalnent, ,vould have been superfluous. But fro111 the known and well-proved insufficiency of the fornler, the Apostles, under the guidance of the Spirit, had recourse to the latter rnode of insuring a source and a rule of faith. 'The Apostles at first owned these \vritings; the Churches received them: they transmitted thelll to their posterity; they grounc1ed their faith upon them; they proved their propositions by them; by tnem they confut.ed heretics; and they made them the 1 E.g. IETà oi T1}V TOVTWV (i.e. TOÛ IIirpov Kat TOV IIaúÀov) l ooov )IápKos, Ò p.a81JT1}S Kal ipP.1JVfVT1}S IIhpov, Kaì aùròs Tà lnrò IIhpov K1JpVo-o-óp.fva èY'Ypáq>ws I ÝJp.îv 7rapaoÉowKf. Iren. H( r. III. I. So again: Hanc fidem annuntiall J 0- annes Domini discipulu8, VOIPllR per Evan- gelii annuntiationem auferre eum qui inseminatus erat hominibuR errorem, et multo priu,;; ab his qui dicuntur Xicolaitæ . . . omnia igitur talia circumscribere volens discipulus Domini, et regulam yeri- tatis constituere in ecclesia . . sic incho- :wit in ea quæ erat secundum Evallgplium doctrina : In principio erat Verbum. . l1æres. III. II. Edit. Grabe. F].'Oo-OÎTOV irrÉ\aJl1ffV TatS TWV à.KJ)oa- TWV TOÛ IlfTpov otaVOiaLS fUO-f,ßfÍas q>É'Yì os, WS /-lh T1] EÌo-á 7ra IKavws XfLV åpKfÎð8aL åKOY, fJ,1JoÈ TV å'Ypáq>4J TOÛ 8fÍov K1Jp V 'YJla- TOS Õioao-Ka"AiC/: 7rapaK"A -!jo-fo-l óÈ 7raVTo[aLS 3lápKOV, OU rò fùaì'YIÀLOV q>ÉpfTat, åKO"Aov- (JOV ÙVTa IIhpov "AL7rap?Jo-aL, ws av Kat OLÒ. 'Ypacþf]s lnrÓ/l-V1Jp.a T1]S aLa "A ó'Y Ol' 7rapa- ooefÍð1JS aurOLS Ka Ta"AfÍ 1þOL oloao-Ka"Aías. p.1) 7rpÓTfpÓV Tf åvÛvaL ?} KaTfp'Yáo-ao-eat TÒV l1vopa, Kat raÚTV alriovs 'Yf1'fa8aL T1]S TOV "Af'YOP.ÉVOll Karà )IápKOV fua'Y'YfÌ\[ov 'Ypaq>1]S. J<:useb. II. E. 11. 15. He gives thi account on the authority of Papias and Clem n AJex3lld. SEC. I.] FOR SALVATION. 135 measure of right and wrong: all that collective body of doctrine, of which all Christians collectively made public confessions, and on which all their hopes of salvation did rely, were all contained in theIn, and they agreed in no point of faith which is not plainly set down in Scripture.' 1 Now Scripture having been thus evidently designed to correct the uncertainty, and supply tbe deficiency of tradition; it is unreasonable to suppose, that God would have suffered Scripture itself, the rnore certain guidp, to be in1perfect, and to need the less certain guide, tradition, to supply its defects. Yet, if Scripture itself does not contain the S11111 and substance of onr religion, and all necessary articles of faith; this \yould be the case. TIut as a 111atter of fact, Scripture has ever been aòc1ucec1, by diyiues of all schools alld aU communions, as capable of proving all the great doctrines of the faith, and all the ÏInportant rules of duty. 'Ve can either prove by it, or ded uce fron1 it, the great doctrines concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Sanctification of the Spirit, Original Sin, Justification, the grace of the Sacran1ents, the privileges of the Oh urch, the Com- nlunion of Saints, the Judgment of the great day, and other \veighty and cardinal points of faith. .L-\.nd though different schools have differed as to how Scripture should be interpreted on some of these points; yet all have agreed, that the true doctrine concerning them may be gathered fronl Scripture, if interpreted aright. ""'hatever value, therefore, we may attribute to a l1railitio He1"mf11c/{tif'rt, to traditional interpretations of Scripture; we ought to be satisfied, that all things 'to be required of any man as an article of faith, or be thought requisite necessary to salvation,' are so contained in Scripture, that they may he either 'read therein, or may be proved thereby.' Several things, indeed, all men allow, are contained in Scripture, which fire not absolutely necessary to salvation, although they may tend to edification; and if the lesser matters were inserted there, how can we suppose that the greater -\vould be omitted ? Nay, although the Church of Rome often appeals to tradition as a necessary part of Divine n,evelation, yet it 1nay well be questioned, whether even she pretends that any very important truth is to be clerived from tradition alone. And assuredly we Inay safely assert that there is a total absence of aU evidence to prove, that there is ven profesS"edly any tradition extant, to which "-e are indebted 1 .T ere Ta)'lor, Diss'U(tsÚ'e from Popery, Pt. II. Ek. I. Sect. 3. 136 THE UFFICIENCY OF HOLl SCRIPTURE [A.RT. ,rr: for the kno,vledge of any great doctrine of the faith, independently of the written word. 2. The principal arguments fron1 reason in favour of the Romanist, and against the Anglican vie,v of this subject, are as follow: (I) Tradition was the first rule. FroIn Adanl to 1\10:5e8 all was traditional; and froni the con}ing of Christ, to the completion of the Canon of the New Testan1ent, tradition must have been the principal guide of the Church. Scripture, therefore, which carrIe in after\vards, cannot supersede that ,vhich was before it, and which at first ,vas sufficient without it. This argument has already been virtually answered by antici- pation. The duration of men's lives before the time of Ioses, and the presence and personal teaching ()f inspired ..Apostles, before thf' writing of the N e'v Testanlent., ,vere great safeguards against error. The fact that, as these safeguards \vere withdrawn, God' Providence ordered that the Scriptures should be ,vritten and preserved, shows of itself, that tradition, ,vhich might have been sufficient then, would not be sufficient now. 'Ve do not say, that Scripture supersedes tra- dition, but that it i8 itself the surest tradition, and the only one on which we can safely rely. It is in fact the Patriarchal, Levitical, and Apostolical tradition presel'ved in its safest and only certain form. (2) It is said, that SCl'ipture ,vas not ,vritten systernatically, but casually, as circumstances occurred. in casual memoirs and occasional letters; and therefore cannot be looked on as a sys- tematic collection of doctrine and morality. This, however, is no proof, that tbe "'''hole SUUl of necessary truth Inay not be extracted from it. H01 l } holy nlen of old were moved to speak or to write, seenlS of little conseqnence. God's wisdoln saw fit, that it should be in the way in 'which we have the Scriptures now. It is certainly in a more interesting, it is pro- bably in a lllore profitable wa.y, than if a systernatic arrangement had been adopted. It is not probable that the .A.postles' teaching, nor even that of our Lord, ,vas always systematic; and yet in tha , all Inen admit that all necessary truth ,vas contained. It cannot, therefore, be necessary to our position to show, that the Scriptures are formally or systen1atically designed. (3) rrhe genuineness and canonicity of Scripture itself rest on tradition, and on tradition alone; and if tradition is necessary to prove this, it may equally prove other doctrines. It is true, that historical testimony, and the universal consent. of all the early Christians, are the cLief grounds on \vhich we rely SEC. I.] FOR SALVATION. 1 ;)ì for proof, that the various books of the New Testament were the works of those whose names they bear. This indeed is, in a great 11leaSUre, the way in which we prove the genuineness of every ancient book. We do not know that a book ,vas ,,"ritten by Cæsar or Tacitus, but by testimony and historical evidence. In like ll1anner, testimony and historical evidence are essential to prove that the works ascribed to St. Peter or St. Paul 'vere really theirs. In this latter case, indeed, we have the most convincing and satisfactory proofs; for we have the testimony of early Chris- tians, of early heretics, of ancient heathens, of friends and of enemies; and besides this. the testimony of the Church catholic in general councils. These are things which ,ve should never lightly value under any circumstances: and when we have to deal with the question concerning the genuineness of certain books, such a kind of evidence is the most obvious, the most nece sary, and the most satisfactory possible. But it does not follow that we should give the same deference to the saIne testin10uy, even if such could be found, on points of doctrine. For the opinions of Cæsar or Tacitus, we prefer the words of their own books to any testi- JTIony external to those books. And so for the doctrines of the Apostles, we look first and chiefly to what they have written. Besides, we have concerning the Canon of Scripture an univer- sality of consent, which it would be utterly in vain to search for concerning any doctrine of the faith, which is not also to be found in Scripture. When the Roman Church can bring a like amount of consistent testimony to prove any doctrine, on which Scripture is silent, we nlay then, and not till then, entertain the question of a àoctrina tradita, parallel to, and of equal authority with, Scripture. (4) It is further said, that n1any necessary things are not set down in Scripture. Bellarmine n1entions the following: 1_ a. How women under the old Law n1Ïght be delivered fronl Original Sin, circumcision being only for males; and how males under eight days olà might be saved from it. b. The Perpetual \'irginity of the blessed Virgin l\Iary, which has always been believed by the Church, and yet is not in Scripture. c. That Easter should be kept on a Sunday, ,vhich is necessary to be believed against the Quartodecimans. d. Infant Baptism, which is necessary to be believed; but neither Romanists nor Protestants can prove it fronl Scripture. 1 De Ve1.bo Dei non ScriJ1tu, Lib. IV. 138 THE SUFFIVIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. e. That there is a Purgatory, which Luther hinlself be- lieved, and yet admitted, that it could not be found in Script ure. If these are all the points that Scripture is silent upon, ,ve need not be very solicitous about its deficiencies. None of them surely can be essential to our salvation. None, except the last two, materially concern our personal faith or practice. The last ,ve not only admit is not in Scripture, but we positively deny that it is true. rrhe last but one, Infant Baptism, we think Dlay be fairly inferred from Scripture, 'when fully consulted on the subject; and we are very tban kful to have the additional testilllony of the primitive Church concerning it, which "we never reject, as a help and guide to the truth and right understanding of the Scriptures, hut only as a distinct and independent authority. The question concerning Easter is one of ceremony, not of faith, and ,ve gladly follo,v the primitive Church in 111atters of this nature; although 've do not hold that ceremonies must be one and the saIne every- ,vhere. The doctrine concerning the Perpetual \Tirginity is rather a pious opinion than a necessary article of faith. Our own greatest divines have mostly adhered to the primitive opinion on this su b- ject.1 But we cannot think that any Inan's salvation is the surer for believing, or the less sure for disbelieving it. The question concerning Original Sin, and ho\v " onlen under the Law ,vere delivered from it, anrl still more, the question con- cerning infants under eight days old, is as much left in obscurity by tradition, as by Scripture. It is one of those things, concerning which we have no revelation. (5) But it is said, that some of the chief articles of faith, though deduced from Scripture, yet could not be proved from Scripture alone, \vithout the help of tradition and the testin10ny of the Church. Among the rest 31"e e lUlllerated, the equality of the Divine Per30ns in the Trinity, the Procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son, the Descent into Hel1, Original Sin, the change of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day. The proof of most of these doctrines from Scripture has already been given under the preceding Articles. \tVe maintain, that the equality of the Persons in the Godhead. and the other great doctrines concerning the 'rrinity, also the descent into Hell, and Original Rin, are clearly deducible fronl S ripture alone We do not indeed 1 Andrewes' Ðe'lJotions: see Prayerf: for Monday. J ere Taylor, Life of Oltrist, 2. Pearson, On the Creed, Art. 'Born of the Virgin l\Iary.' Bp. Bun, JVorks, V 01. L P.9 6 . EC. I.] FOR SALVATION. ] :39 reject tbe testinlony of antiquity, but view it as a valuable guide to the true meaning of Holy "\V rit; but \ve l1laintain, that these doctrines might be proved, even without its aid. ÅS to the Pro- ce sion of the Holy Ghost, if Scripture will not prove it, certainly tradition will not. In considering the last Article, we saw that the tradition of the vVestern was different, in sonle respects, fronl that of the Eastern Church. The Kicene Creed for some cen- turies lacked the Filioque. And fronl the evidence in favour of the doctrine, which we deduced from Scripture, it should appear, that Scripture speaks more plainly upon it than tradition or the Church. The change of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day is not an article of faith; but it is doubtless a matter of some moment. It is true that without the aid of history we might find some diffi- culty in discovering, whether thp early Christians did give up observing the Jewish SaLLatll, and keep festival on 1 he first day of the week. But even so, we think, Scripture alone would give us proof that the Lord's Day was to be observed, and that the T ewish Sabbath was not to be observed. Certainly, we read of the first day of the \veek, a the day on which Christians beld their assem blies, adn1Ïnistered the Holy Cornmunion (..Ltl.cts xx. 7), and collected alms for the poor (I Cor. xvi. 2). So the Apostle St. John , was in the pirit on the Lord's Day' (Rev. i. 10). But' Sabbath- days' are enumerated as one of the 'shadows of thillgS to come,' which belonged to the old dispensation, and so were not binding on Christians (Co1. ii. 16, 17). Hence the N E'W Testalnent. gives us good reason to believe, that the obligation to keep the seyenth day of the week had passed away, and that the weekly festival of the Christian Church was not Saturday, but Sunday. If it be not. conceded, that such Scriptural authority be sufficient to satisfy us; we may reply, that the keeping of the Lord's Day is not a question eSRential to our salvation, like the great doctrines of our faith; and that, therefore, even if we req uire historical or trarlitional evidence concerning it, in addition to Scripture, this will not be a case to interfere with this ..Article. of our Cbarch, \vhich speaks only of articles of faith, and things necessary to salvation. (6) Lastly, it is said, Scripture is in many things so obscure, that tradition is necessary to explain its meaning. To this we reply, that there is, at times, no doubt, SOl11e diffi- culty. rrhe Church of England does Dot reject the use of all proper aids for the explanation of Scripture. She encourages recourse to human learning, in order to elucidate the l&Dguage of J101y Writ. She does by no means reject any light, which ma.y l-tO THE S(JIrFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [..\RT. VI. be derived fronl prin1Ìtive antiquity, and she is anxious to cherish a learned clergy for the instruction of her poorer and more igno- rant nlembers. Her rule too concerning Scripture is not that every uneducated person ought to take the Scriptures in hand, and search out for hÏ1nself a system of theology. She teaches her children by catechislllS and other simple steps to know ledge of the truth. All that she Inaintains, is, that as a final court of appeal, Scripture is perfect and sufficient. Her children may, by intelligent and hUIn ble study of the Scriptures, find in them full authority for all she teaches:, and do not require a second inde- pendent authority. The fathers acknowledge the Scripture to b0 sufficiently plain, if expounded by conlparing Scripture ,vith Scripture. Irenæus tens us to solve the 11)Ore difficult parts of Scripture by having recourse to those ,vhich are easy. 1 And Chrysostom says, 'Look for no other teacher; thou hast the oracles of (i-ad; none teaches thee like these.' 'There is no question but there are many places in the Divine Scriptures, nlysterions, intricate, and secret: but these are for the learned, not for the ignorant: for the curious and inquisitive, not for the busied and eillployed and sirnple ; they are not repositories of salvation, but instances of labour, and occasions of hun1ility, and argulnents of forbearance and nlutual toleration, and an endearment of reverence and adoration. But all that. by which (-tod brings us to Hirl1self, is easy and plain.' 3 III. "r e have lastly to prove, that the testimony of the prinlitive fathers is in faYunr of the Anglican rule, and not. of the Roman. 1. Irenæns says: '\Y e know that the Scriptures are perfect as being spoken hy the \V ord of God and His SpIrit.' -1 Again: , 'Ve haye recei\Ted the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us: \vhich they then preached, [ind afterwards by God's win delivered to lIS in the Hcriptnre , to be the piUa1' and gronnd of our faith.' 5 1 Omnis autem quæstio non per aliud quod quæI'ituI' haLebit I'esùlutionem, nec ambiguitas per aliaIll ambiguitatem solve- tur apud eos qui sensum habent, aut ænigmata per aliud majus ænigma Red ea quæ sunt talia ex lllanife tis et C01l80- nantiLus et daris accipiunt solutionem.- I Lib. II. 10. See Beaven.s .1ccount of h'cnæus, p. 138. 11 omit. IX. in Ep. Coloss. 3 J er. Taylor's DissllashefromPopery. Part II. Bk. I. 2. 4 Cedere hæc talia debemus Deo qui et nos fecit, rectis irne scientes quia Scrip- turæ quidern perfectæ sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritn ejus dictæ.-Lib. 11. c.47. Non enim per alios dispositionem. SEC. 1J FOB. SALYATlûN. ]41 Tertullian says: 'I adore the perfection of Scripture, whi h t1eclares to me the Creator and His work . . . . . "\Vhether all things 'were made of pre-existing lllatter, I ha\Te as yet nowhere read. Let the school of IIernlogenes show. that it is "\vrittf'n. If it is not written, Jet then} fear the .woe, "\vhich is destined for them who add to or take a\vay.' 1 OriO'en savs: · The two Testaments. . . . in ,vhicl every \vord b J that appertains to God nlay be sought out and discussed, and fronl theln all knowJf'dge of things may be understood. If anything reillain. \vbich Hol:y Scripture doth not determine, no third Scrip- ture ought to be hat1 recourse to . . .. but that \vhich remaineth .we 111Ust commit to the fire- i.e., reserve it unt.o God. For God would not have us know all things in this worId.,2 Hippolytus writes: 'There is one Gcd whn}Jl we do not other- wise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot other- wise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will exercise piety towards God, can learn it nowhere but from the Holy Scriptures.' 3 Athanasius: '11he holy aud divinely-inspired Scriptures are of thelllselves sufficient to the enunciation of truth.' 4 ..A.gain:' These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the doctrine of salvation is contained. Let no man add to, or take from them.'5 a.lutis nostræ cognovimus, quam per eos per quos :Evangelium pervenit ad nos: quod quid em tunc præconiaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nubi tradidernnt, fundamentum et co- lumnam fidei no træ futurum.-Lib. III. c. I. I Adoro Scripturæ plenitudinem quæ mihi et }'actorem manifestat et facta. In Evangelio vero arnplius et ministrum t't arbitrum Rectnris in \"enio, Sermonem. Au autem de aliqua subjacenti materia facta sint omnia., nusquam adhuc legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina. Si non est scriptum, timeat 'æ illud ad- jiCÙ11tibus aut detrahentibu8 destinatum. -Adv. H ernwgenem, c. 22. See also .Apolog. c. 47. De Præscript. c. 6, &c. :] In hoc biduo puto duo Testamenta posse intf-lligi, in quibus liceat omne verbum quod ad Denm pertilwt (hoc enim est sacrificium) requiri et discut.i, atque ex ipsis oumem rerum scieutiam capi. Si quid antem superfuerit, quod non divina Scriptura decernat, nul1am aliam tertiam Scripturam debere ad auctoritatem sci- entiæ suscipi. . . . :-;eù igni tradamus quod superest, id est, Dco reservemu . Neque enim in præsenti vita Deus scire nos ollmia volnit.-Origen. IIollzil. v. in Levit. 3 El eEÒ , ÖV OåK áÀ.ÀOOEV Ún-YLVc!:UKO- }JÆ.V, àOEÀcþOL, 7) h TWV á)'iwv -ypacþ{;;v. Óll -yap TpÓ7rOV iàv TL ßOVÀT}(JV T7}V (Jocþlaz I TOÛ alwvo TOÚTOV åUKEW, OUK äÀÀw ovv1;uETaL TOÚTOV TVXÛV iàv !1-1] OÓ-Y!1-aUL cþLÀOUÓcþwv iVTÚXIJ, TÒV aU7òV 01] TpÓ7rOV ÕUOL eW(JÉßELaV ÙUKELV ßop.Àó/.JÆOa, Ol'K å\ÀOOEV àUK1;uop.EII ÈK TWV Ào-ylwv TOU eEoû.---'-Hippol .t. Contra. IIæresim lVoeti, c. 9. 4 AVTapKâ !1- Èv -yå.p ELULV ai. ú-ylaL Kaì (JEÓ7rVWUTOL -ypacþaì 7rpÒ T1]V Tfj àÀ'Y)- Oda È7ra-Y-YEÀlav. - Athanas. contra, Gentes, 'rum.!. p. I. ð TaûTa 7r'Y}')'aì TOÛ UWTT}plov wuu TÒV OL !fwvTa i!1-ØopEÎ(J 0 aL TWV iv TOÚTOL Ào-ylwv' Èv TOÚTOL fJ.óvov TÒ T-í7 EvuEßEla<; oLoauKaÀÚov ùaì-YEÀl5ETaL" fJ.7JoEìS TOÚ- TOL i7rLßaÀÀ Tw, !1-1] oÈ TOÚTWV åcþaLpEÍuOw. -I___'x Pestali E'pistola XXXIX. Tom. II. p. 3'}, Edit. Colon. 1j THE S(JFFICIE CY OF HOLY SCRIPTUR S [ -\.RT. VI. Cyril of J erusalenl saY/f) that, , Concerning the divine and holy lnysteries of the faith, even the nlost casual remark ought not to be delivered without the Sacred Scriptures.' 1 Basil: 'Believe those things which are written; the things \vhich are not ,vritten seek not.' 2 'It is a luanifest defection fronl the faith, and a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of ,vhat is written, or to introduce anything that is not.' 3 Ambrose: 'How can 've use those thiTJgs, ,vhich we find not . h S . ? ,-I: }n t e crlptures. J-erolue: : \Ve deny not those things which are written, so we refuse tbose which are not \vritten. That. God was born of a Virgin \va believe, because we read; that l\Iary nlarrie<.1 after she gave birth to Him, we believe not, because we read not.' 5 Augustine: 'In those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, \vhich embrace faith and morals.' 6 Vincentius Lirinensis begins \vith the adn1ission, that, 'The Canon of Scripture is perfect, and llJOst abundantly sufficient for all thing .'" Theodoret: 'Bring not human reasonings and syllogisms; I rely on Scripture: 8 John Damascene: 'All things, that are delivered to us by the Law, the Prophets, the -\.postles, and the Evangelists, we receivp, acknowledge and reverence, seeking for nothing beyond these.' U It can scarcely be necessary to bring more or stronger proofs, 1 ÂÛ ')'àp 7r pt. TWJI (híWJI Ka åì'LWJI T 7rl(],TEW!ò I-WO"T'Y}plwv l-'-'Y}ôÈ TÒ TÚXOV äJl v TWlI (hlwJI 7rapaòlÒO(Jf3aL ì'p:uþwlI.- Cyril. Hieroso1. Oatech. IV. 12. 2 TOt 'Y 'Ypal-'-l-'-fVOL 7rl(JUlIE, Tà J.l- ,eypap.p.ÉJla p.T] 1]TH.-Bèl:;i1. 1lum. XXIX. adv. Culumniante8 S. T'rin. 3 CÞaJl pà ll\7rTW(],L!ò 7rL(]'TfW!ò Kat. V7rEp'Y}- cþavlas KaT'Y}'Yopla fJ àfJfTÚv 7L 'TWlI 'Y 'Ypap.p.ÉJlwJI 7} hH(]'á'Y HlI 'TWJI p.7) ')'E- -ypap.p.fJlwJI.-ßa:-;il. De Fide, c. I. 4 Quæ in Scriptm'is sauctis non re- perimu , ea quemadmuclum usurpare P08- umus? -Ambros. Offic. Lib. I. e. 23. á Ut hæe quæ eript:t sunt non ne- gauHl , ita ea quæ nOll eripta sunt re- nuimus. NatulU Deum t1 Virgine cre- dimus, quia. legimus. l\Ia.riarn Ilupsisse post partulll non eredinm..;, quia non legimus.-Hieron. adv. lJel1:idium juxta fin em. TOlli. n-. Part II. 141, Edit. .Benedict. 6 In iis quæ a,perte ill Scriptura pU::5ita :5unt, inveniuutur illa ollluia. quæ conti- nent fidem moresque viveudi.-A.ngust. De Dor-trina Christ, Lib. II. c. 9, T01U. II I. p. 24. In like manner,-Proinde sive de Christo. si ve de ejus Eeclesia, si ve de quacumque alia rp quæ pertinet ad fide III vitamque vestram, non dicalll 110S uequa- qua.m comparandi ei qui dixit, Lieet si 110S ; sed omnino quod secutus adjeeit. Si apgelus de cælo vobis anuuntia.\'erit præ- terquam qnod in Seripturis legalibus et e \'angelici8 \ccèpisth:,anathema :sit.- Aug. cunt. Petilium, Lib. IH. c. 6, Tom. IX. p. 30 I. 7 Cum F:it perfectus Se 'iptura.rUlIl Canon, sibique ad omnia sat.i:-; superque sufficiat.- Vincent. Lirill. Com.monit01.. c. 2. 8 311] P.OL ÀO'YLCTP.OÙS Kat. (],V^ÀOì'LcrJ.l.OV Q.JI()pW7rLlIOliS 7rpOCTfllÉ-YKT/!ò. f'YW -yàp P.ÒJI!I 7rEÍ()op.aL TV ()fÍg, -ypaCÞT/ . - Theodoret. Dial. I. 'd'TpE7f'T. 9 n áV'Ta rà 7fapaÔLÔÓfJ. va T;J..l.W OLá n VÓfJ.OV Kaì 7rpOcþ'Y}TWJI Kat. å7fO(]'TÓXWJI Kaì H ì''YEÀL(JTWll ,ò xóp.f()a aì 'YL;W(],KOfEJI KaL (JÉßOP.EJI, OVOElI 7f paL'TEpW TOVTWJI E7fL- -'Y}TOÛllTfS'.-Da1llascen. Lib. I. De Urtlw- dux. Fide, c. 1. SEC. I.] }'OR SAL\-ATlüX. I-J-; that the fathers with one voice affirm the perfection and sufficiency of the written word, for the end for which it was written-i.e., for a rule of faith, and for a rule of life.' 1 2. (I) But an objection will be urged to these argun1f>nt from the fathers, that sonle of theIn, and those of no mean import- ance, clearly speak of a rule of faith ",hicIt is distinct from the Scriptures; it is therefore evident that they do not appeal to Scripture alone as supreme, perfect and sufficient. Thus, ,vithout question, Irenæus spoke of a Ka.JJ JJ TijÇ àÀ1]edus, 'a rule of truth,' according to which he considered that the Scriptures ought to bt-' interpreted. In the saIne tnanner rrertullian appeals to a llegulu Fidei, 'a rule of faith,' hy which he was guided in interpreting Scripture. 3 Here are two of the earliest fathers appealing tD an authority ,vhich is certainly not Scripture; and therefore they must have held that something besides Scripture ,vas necessary, and that all tbilJgs needful for faith and practice, ,vere not con- tained in Scripture. If, ho,vever, we consult the contexts, we shall find that the rule spoken of in both these fathers is the baptisnJal Creed. Irenæus expressly says that the Canon of Truth, which each one was to keep, "Was that which was received by him at his baptism;-l and in the next chapter recites a form or profession of faith, which is very nearly the same as the Apostles' Creed, and wl1Îch he speaks o:f, as that 'faith which the Church scattered throughout the world diligently keeps.'5 In the very same manner Tertullian writes, , Now we have a rule of faith, which teaches us what we are to defend and nlain- tain, and by that very rule \\-e believe that there is One God,' &c. : he goes on reciting the various articles of the Creed. 6 11ere then we see, that the rules of faith of Irenæus and Tertullian were not some independent tradition, teaching doctrines not to be found ill Scripture, but the Creeds taught to the Christians and confessed by 1 Divines of the English Church have collected many other passages to the same purpose.-See Laud aflaínst Fis/ler, S 16; U::;sher's Answer to a Jesuit, ch. 2; Jer. Taylor, Dissuasi'l-'e f7'om POpel"!J, Part II. Bk. I. ch. 2; Rule vf Co'nscience, Book II. ch. II. Rule XIV. From some of which works I bave taken the above passage:5 (with one or two exceptions) merely veri- fying the qnotatioll . 2 OÜTW ÔÈ Kat. Ó TÒV Ka"óva T77 å:\:1]- OfLa.r; åKXLV77 i" iaVTC;; KaTfXWV ÔV OLà. ßa7rTí(jp.QTO dXTJ1>f, Tà p.Èv fK TWV ')'pa- cþWV Dv6p.aTa Kat. Tà XÉ fL Kaì TÒ. 7rapaßoÀòr; È7rL')'VWO"fTaL.- Irellæ. I. 9. 3 Ræc Regula a Christo, ut probabi- tnr, instituta nullas habet qnæRtiones, ni::;i quas hæreses inferunt, et quæ hæreti- cos faciunt.-Tertllil. De Præscript. 11æ7'(t. c. 14. .Adversus Regulam nihil s(.ire omni l scire.-Ibid. -l See the last note but one. ;; Lib. I. 10. G De Præ.'lc1'ípt. Hæret. c. 13. 144 THE SUFFIC[ENCY OF HOLY SCIUPTURES [ART. VI. them at their baptism, which were in fact epitomes of important Scriptural doctrine, founded on Scripture, and funy according wit.h it. This is a \videly different thing from the Doct?i71(( tradita of the Church of Ronle. Reliance on the latter is opposed to thp suffi iency of Scripture; but the rule of Irenæus and Tertullian was based upon Scripture, and in all respects accordant with it. Clernent of Alexandria also, \vho is aln10st as early a \vitness as ffertullian, speaks, like Irenæus, of a K(W:VV T Ç à^"1ÐEluç, , a 1"ule of truth,' which he also calls KUV:VV ÈKK^I/rrlurrTlKóç. But this rule, so far from being something apart from, and of pa.rallel authority with criptnre, is, according to Clelnent, founded on a harmony of the Old TestaIuent with the New. 'The ecclesiastical rule,' says he, 'is tbe harmony of the La\v and the Prophets \vith the Covenant delivered by the Lord during His presence on earth.' 1 A like sense we :nust attach to the language of the later fathers, when 'wp find them speaking of a Regula Fidei. They conRidered the fundan1ental doctrines of the faith, those, that is, contained in the Creeds, to be the great guide for Christians in interpreting Scriptures. vVhosoever erred from these erred fronl the truth; and in eXplaining obscure passages, they held, that it was very needful to keep in view the necessity of not deviating from the great lines of truth marked out in the baptismal Creeds. 'rhis wa.s not to add to Scripture, but to guard it against being "Trested to destruction. 2 (2) But it may be said, Irenæus, Tertullian, and others, not only appealed to tradition, but even preferred arguing from tradi- tion to arguing from Scripture. Tertullian, especially says: 'No appeal must be made to the criptures, no contest must be founded on them, in \vhich victory is uncertain. . . . . ffhe grand question is, to 'whom the Paith itself belongs: in \yhose hands \vere the Scriptures deposited. . . . to \vhom that doctrine \vas first committed, whereby we are made Christians? For wherever this true doctrine and discipline shall appear to be, there the truth of the Scripture and of the inter- pretation of it will be, and of Christian tradition.' 3 The meaning, however, of this appeal to tradition in preference 1 Kavwv ôÈ fKK 'r}(naUTLKÒr; .ry uVl!4Joia Kal 7] uUJ.uþwvla VÓ}J.ou Tf KaÌ, 7rPOifJ'r}TWV TV KaTà. T7]V TOÛ Kuplou 7rapouulav 7rapa- oLoo}J.lvTJ oLa8i}KTJ. -Strom. Lib. VI. C. IS. ed. Potter, p. 803. 2 See Bp. Marsh, On tILe lllt( l-p1.eta- tion of tlte Bible, Leet. XI. ; Bp. Kaye's Tert'ullian, p. 290, &c.; Bp. Kaye's Ole- '1nent of .Alexandria, p. 366; Beaven's l1'enæu8, ch. VIII. 3 De Præscript. Hæret. c. 19. SEC. 1.J FOIl S \L Y A 1'10:\. 145 to Scripture, both by Irenæus and Tertullian, is this. Both ""'ere reasoninO' aO"ainst heretics. Those heretics mutilated Scripture, o 0 and perverteù it. "\Vhen, therefore, the fathers found their appeal to Scripture of no effect, partly because the heretics were ready to deny that what they quoted was Scripture, and partly because they were ready to evade its force by false glosses and perverted interpretations; then the fathers saw, that to reason from Scrip- ture ,vas not COli yincing to their opponents, and therefore they had recourse to the doctrine preserved by the ....--\ postolical Churche , which, they maintaiqed, ,vere not likely to have lost or to have corrupted the truth first entrusted to them. It was not, that they themselves doubted the sufficiency of Scripture, but that they found other weapon::; useful against the gainsayers, and there- fore brought tradition, not to add to, bnt to confirm Scripture. 1 The satne Juay be said concerning the famous work of Vincen- tius Lirinensis. He begins by admitting, that' Scripture is perfect and abundantly of itself sufficient for all things.' But because various heretics have misinterpreted it, Novatian expounding it in one way, Photinus in another, Sabel1ius in another, and so on: 'therefore,' he says, 'very necessary it is for the avoiding of such turnings and t\vinings of error, that the line of interpreting the Prophets and Apostles be directed according to the rule of Ecclesi- astical and Catholic sense.' 2 This is not to introduce a Dew rule independent of Scripture. It is at most a Traditio HermencZltica, a rule for the interpreting of Scripture. It still leaves Scripture as the fountain of truth: though it guards against using its strealllS for other than legitimate purposes. Finally, ,ve have seen the concurrent testimony of the fathers to be in favour of the sufficiency oÎ Scripture. If, here and there, a single passage be apparently unfavourable to this testimony; we 11lust hold it to be a private opinion of an Ï1.1dividual father, and therefore not worthy of being esteemed in comparison with their general consent. For it is a rule of Vincentius himself, that "Vhatsoever any, although a learnell rnan, a bishop, a lllartyr, or a confessor, holds, otherwise than all, or against all, this lllust be put aside from the authority of the general judgment, and be reputed n1erely his own private opinion.' 3 1 See Beaven's Ircnæu8, p. 136; Bp. I 3 Commonitor. c. 28. On the true Kaye's Tertullian, p. 297, note. sense of t?e perfe ion. of Scr p.ture, see 2 Commonito1". C. 2. Hooker, È. P. I. XllI. XlV. II. VIn. 5. L 146 TIlE SUFFICIE UY OF HOLY sr RIPTURES [.\RT. ' I. SECTIOK II.-O THE O.liNGS OF SCRIPTURE. 1 AS Scripture is determined by onr Church to be the final appeal and only infallible authority concerning matters of faith and practice; it bec01nes next a subject of the deepest importance to determine "That is Scripture and what is not. And, as this subject is so important, \ve naturally look for an authority of the highest kind to settle and detern1ine it. "\Ve value, indeed, the decisions of antiquity, \ve re pect thf' judgment of the primitive Church. But on the question, \Yhat is the Word of God? we would, if po::;sible, have an authority as infallible as the \vord of God; and, if we can have such authority, \ve can be satisfied ,vith nothing less. Now such an authority \ve believe that we possess; and that \ve possess it in this \yay: Christ Himself gave His own Divine sanction to the J e\yish Canon of the Old Testament; and He gave Hi own authority to His ...4..postles to 'v rite the N e\y. If this statenlent be once adillitted; \ve have only to investigate historically, \vhat \vas the Jewish Canon, and \vhat \vere the books \vritten by the Apostles. "r e need search no further; we shall greatly con- fir1TI our faith hX the \vitness offathers and councils; but, if Christ has spoken, ,ve need no other, as \ve cnn have no highel" ,varrant. I. Now, first, we have to consider the question of the Old Testa11wnt,. and our enquiry is, Has onr Lord Hin1self stanlped with His authority certain books, and left others unauthorized? Thfl answer is, He has. "\Ve lTIUSt not, indeed, argue from the fact of His quoting a certain number of books and leaving a cer- tain nun1ber unquoted; for there are six books, \vhich can be proved to be Oanonical, ,vhich the \vriters of the New Testanlent never quote: viz., Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Solonlon's Song. The fact, that these books are not <'}uoted, \vill not destroy their authority; for \ve have no reason to say, that onr Lord or His ...t\.postles quoted systematically from all the Canonical books, in order to establish their canonicity. But the way. in \vhich our Lord has given His own sanction to a certain definite 1 The w(lrll l\aVÙJV signifies a line, or rule-a standarù, therefore, by which other things are to be judged of. It is applied to the tonrlue of a balance, or that small part of the scales, \V hich by its per- pendicular situation determine the en n poise or weight. or by its inclination either \'"ay the uneven poise of the things that are weighed. It is applied to the Scrip- tures, because they ha\Te eVer been es- teemed in the Church' the infallible rule of our faith, and the perfect sqnare of our actions, in aU things that are in an.v way need ful for our eternal sal va tion. ' -008 in's Scholastic IIist. of the Canon, chap. I.; J ones, On the Canon, ch. I. I j SEC. I1.J ]i'OR SAL V ATIO:K. 147 number of books, is this: In speaking to the Jews, both He and lIis Apostles constantly address thetl1 as having the Scriptures- Scriptures of Divine authority, and able to lllake them ,vise unto salvation. They neve. hint, that the Jewish Canon is imperfect or excessive; and hence they plainly show, that the Scriptures, which the Jews possessed and acknowledged, were the truly Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament. Our Lord encourages thelll to 'search the Scriptures,' and adds, 'they are they ,vhich testify of Ie' (John v. 39). St. Paul says, that the greatest pri vilege of the Jews was, that 'unto them were cOlnmitted the Oracles of God' (Ronl. iii. 2); and tells Timothy, that 'from a child he had kno\vn the Scriptures, which were able to make him ,vise unto salvation' (2 Tim. iii. 15). ___-\.ccordingly, our Lord con- stantly appeals to those Scriptures, as .well-known and universally- received books among the Jews, to ,vholn He spoke, quoting them as, 'It is written,' or asking concerning them, 'How readest thou? ' Though the Jews are charged with many errors, ,vit h corrupting the truth by tradition, and adding to it the command- ments of men; yet nowhere are they charged with corrupting Scripture, ,vith having rejected SOlne, or added other books to the Canon. But it is ever plainly i111plied that the Canon, which they then possessed, was the true Canon of the Old Testament. rrhus, then, by quoting, referring to, or arguing from the Old Testaulent, as it was then received by the Jews, our Lord stamps with His own supreme authority the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures. 'Ve have only further to determine from history ,vhat the Jewish Canon at the tÌ1ne of our Saviour's teaching was, and ,ve have all that we can need. If history will satisfy us of this, we have no more to ask. Now the only difficulty lies here. There appear to be two differ- ent books clain1Ìng to be the Jewish Scriptures-viz., the Hebrew Bible, now in the hands both of Jews and Christians, and the Sep- tuagint. The latter contains all the books contained in the former, with the addition of the books commonly called the Apocrypha. Let us first observe that the modern Jews universallj ackno,v- ledge no other Canon. but the He brew; ,vhich corresponds accurately with the Canon of the English Church. Those ,vho know the fidelity with which for centuries the Jews have guarded their text, will consider this alone to be a strong argument, that the Hebrew Canon is the saIne as that cited by our Lord. Every verse, every word, every letter, of Scripture, is numbered by thenl. Every large and every small letter, every letter irregularly written, L 2 ] 48 THE SUFFIUIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTUHE [ART. 'ì1. above the line or below the line, is taken notice of and scrupulously preserved. But we can go back to more ancient tÏ1nes, and shoyv that the Canon of the Jews has always been the San1E'. The Baby- lonian Taln1ud recounts the saIne books that we have now-viz., In the Law, the five books of :ßloses; among the Prophets, Joshua and Judges, Sarl1uel and I(ings, Jeremiah anù Ezekiel, Isaiah and the t,velye n1Ïnor prophets; in the Chethubinl, Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles. This ,vas the Canon of the Jewish Church about A.D. 550. 1 But ISO years earlier than this, JerOlne undertook the task of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin. Theretofore all the Latin translations had been frorn the Septuagint, and there- fore contained all the .....\ pocryphal book . J erOille, the first of thE' Latin fathers ,vho could read Hebre,v, \vhen undertaking this irllportant labour, ,vas naturally led to examine into the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. He informs us that tbe Jews had two- and-twenty books in tbeir Bible, corresponding with the two-and- twenty IIebrew letters. This nunlber they made by classing two books together as one; thus, the two Looks of Samuel were one, the two books of l ings, Ezra and N ehen1iah, J ererniah and Lamentations, Judges and Ruth, respectively, were considered as one each. The books were divided into three classes, the La,,', the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. The first contained the five books of ::\loses; the second contained Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Sauluel, I ings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, and the twelve nlinor prophets; the third contained Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Daniel, Ezra and N ehelniah, Esther, Chronicles. The La\v, therefore, contained five books, the Prophets eight, the Hagiographa nine. 2 rro go still further back, Origen, who was born A.D. 184, and who died A.D. 255, and who, like Jerome, ,vas learned in Hebre,v, and gave great attention to the Hebre\v text (as is -well kno vn from his famous work, the Hexaplct), enumerates the saIne books that Jerome does, except that he adds after all the rest, that there was the book :ì\Iaccabees apart or distinct from the other .3 1 Baba Bathra, fol. 14, coI. 2. Ths books of Ioses are called ill;1=) The Law; the pf(lphetical books û'l :;1 The Pro- phets; the other books C'l ':1n Chethu- bim, i.e., The Scriptures or Writings. 2 Hieron. Prologu8 Galeatus, Ope TOIU. I. p. 38. Ed. Belled. 3 Ap. Euseb. II. E. VI. 25: "E w Of TOÚTWV f(jT Tà TYlaKKaßaiicà å7rEp f7rL)'É- Xpa7rTaí. l;apß1]8 'I-apßaVLÈX. Bishop SEC. rr.J FOR SALYATION. 149 Still earlier, 1felito, Bishop of Sardis, made a journey into the East, for the sake of inquiring what ,vere the books held canonical there, and, in a letter to Onesimus, gives -a catalogue of these books, precisely corresponding ,vith the present Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, except that he classes Ezra, N ehen1Ìah, and Esther, under the common name of Esdras. 1 This father lived about the year 160. ",Ve next come to Jo::;ephns. He flourished at the time of the siege of Jerusa]eIIl, and was therefore contenlporary ,\'ith the \.postles. In the first place, ,ve find in his writings the saTne threefold division which OCCllrs in Jerome and has ever since been common ,yith the Jews-viz., the La , the Pl'ophets, and other books, which he characterizes as 'Hymns and Instructions for l\Ien's Lives.' A sinlilar dÌ\Tision exists in Philo. 2 But Josephus, moreover, divides the Scriptures, as J eron1e testifies that the .J pws did in his t.ime, into t\venty-two books. 3 The only difference between the di \7isions of Josephus and J erome is, that, whereas Terome says there were eight in the Prophets and nine in the Hagiographa, Josephus assigns thirteen to the rrophets, and four to the Hagiographa. 'Ye kno,v, however, that the J e\vs have gradually been augnlenting the nunl bel' of the books of the Hagio- grapha and diminishing the number in the Prophets, so that there is no great wonder, if between the first and the fourth century, there was such a change in their nlode of reckoning, that in the first the\' reckoned thirteen, in the fourth but eiO"ht amonO' 1 )1'0- J ü ö phetical books. Thus, then since we find that Josephus giyes tbe same three- fold division, which ,ye find afterwards given by JerOlne, and also that he gives the saIne total number of books-viz., twenty-t,vo, though somewhat differently distributed: we might at once naturally conclude, that the Jewish Canon in the time of Joseph us ,vas the same with the Jewish Canon in the tilne of Jerome. That is to say, we Il1ight conclude, th3.t it embraced the books now in the Hebre"r Bibles and in the Canon 0f the English Church, and that it exc1udeù the Apocryphal books, which the English Church excludes. But if ,ye could doubt that this ,yas the case his , own words n1Ìght set us at rest: for he tells us, that the books belonging to the second class (i.e., to the Prophets) ,vere written Cosin interprets this as meaning that the 2 IJe Vita CfJn/emplativa, Tom. II. p. BookR of :Maccabees were' out of the 1 475; ::\1a.rsh, On the Authority of the Old Ca.non.'-History of the Ca:non, ch. v. Testament, Leet. XXXII. I Euseb. H. E. IV. 26. See Bp. C() in 3 Contra Apion. 1. 8; Euseb. II. E. a above, ch. JY. JIJ. IO. 1 :30 THE SU11'FICIEKCY UF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. YT. previously to the reign (or to the death) of Artaxerxes Longi- nlanus, and that, though books were written after that time, , they \vere not esteemed ,vorthy of the same credit with those before them, because there was no longer the exact succession of the }:)rophets.' 1 It was during the reign of Artaxerxes I.Jongimanus that the book of Esther was vvritten, Artaxerxes being, aLcording to Josephus, the .....\hasuerus of that book. 2 This wonld therefore be the last book of his Canon. All the Apocryphal books must have been "'Titten long after that reign, and therefore cannot be included in bis twenty-two books, cOlllpared with which they ,vere not thought 'worthy of equal credit. It is plain, therefol'e, that the Canon of Josephus nlust be the same ,vith that of Jeronle. NovV', in the short time vvhich elapsed between our Saviour's earthly ministry and Josephus, no alteration can have taken place in the Canon. Josephus himself tells us, that a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures ,vas preserved in the Tenlple. 3 And therefore until the destruction of the Temple, when Josephus was thirty- three years old, that Temple copy existed, and was a protection against all change. lIe would have had easy access to that Temple copy, and hence is a fully competent ,vitness to its contents. Nay, even ,vithout the existence of that copy, which was an invaluable security, ,ve learn froln Philo, that in his tilne the J e"vs hac1 the same intense veneration for the word of Scripture, which we know them to have l1ad afterwards; so that nothing could induce them 'to al tel' one word, and that they "vauld rather die ten thousand deaths, than suffer any alteration in their laws and statutes.' 4 We are nüw arrived at the period when the books of the New rrestament were ,vritten. })hilo and Josephus were in fact con- temporaries of Christ and IIis Apostles. "r e have already seen, that our Lord and the Apostles quote the Scriptures as well known and universally received, and never hint at their corruption. Our I..Jord indeed c1ivides theln (as "ve see they were divided by Jerome 1 'A7fò ôÈ 'ApTaUp ov P.lXPL TOÛ KaO' i}p.â x.pÓVOV, )'É)pa 7rTaL p.Èv ËI\a(j'Ta' 7fL(j'- TEW o OÙX òp.oia 7) LWTaL Toî 7fpÒ aÙTWJI. OLà TÒ p.7J Î'f.JlÉ(j'OaL T7JJI 7WJI 7fp O ø7J TWJI àKPLßf] OLaOOXQJI. - Cont'1.a tpionem., I. 8; Euseb. II. E. III. 10. 2 Anti'). Lib. XI. cap. 6. 3 Å7'jÌ\OÛTaL OLà TWJ1 aJlaKELp.ÉJlC.oJJI iJl rciJ ifpciJ )pap.p.áTwJI.-Antiq. Lib. v. ('. EUReb. Præpar. Erangcl. Lib. VIIT. 6: :[ -ry p1}p.á 'Y' aù- , , ^", , TOV P.OJlOJl TWJI V7f aUTOV )'E)'pap.p.fJlWJI Jlf](j'aL, àÌ\Ì\à Kâv f..wpíaKL aÙTOÙ å7foOa- vÚJI v7fop.f.WaL 6âTTOJl Toî (KELVOV VÓP.OL Kal tOE(j'LJI iJlaVTLa 7rH(j'Of]vaL.-See CO!';ill, On the Canon, ch. II. SO Josephus: .1f]Ì\OJl 0' l(jTìv Ëp)'Cf? 7fW 'hf.l.Ú TOÎS' lôioL 'Ypáp.p.a(j'L 7fE7fl(j'uvKap,f.v. TO(jOVTOV 'Yàp alwJlo fj07J 7fapCf?X7JKÓTO<; oiJn 7fpo(jOáJlaí TL oùoÈJI, oiJu à.øf.ÀÛJI aÙTWJI, oiJu ,uETaOÚvaL TETÓÌ\P.7JKfJl. - Contra , Apiollc'ln, 1. 8; 1/. E. III. SEC. I1.J FOR SALVATION. 151 and the Jews ever since) into three distinct classes, which our Lord calls the Law, t11e Prophets, and the Psalms,l in which 'the Psahns' is put for the whole flagiographa, either because the Psalms stood first among the books of the Hagiographa, or because the Hagiographa lllay be said to consist chiefly of hymns and poems, which lllio'ht ,veIl be called Psahns. 2 'Ve have to add to this, a that in the New Testament every book of the Jewish Canon is distinctly quoted with the exception of six, and those perhaps the six least likely to haye furnished passages for quotation; but not one quotation occurs frolll anyone of those books which form a part of what is now called the .IA..pocrypha. 3 If we could carry the evidence no further, we might rest satis- fied here that our Lord gave His sanction to the Hebrew, not to the Septuagint Canon. But we can go one step further: and it is this: one hundred and thirty years before our Lord's birth, the Prologue of the Book of Ecclesiasticus was written, which divides the Hebrew Scriptures into the saIne three classes, 'the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of the fathers.' This is a ground for believing that the Jewish Scriptures were the saIne in number then that they were found to be afterwards. Again, what is not a little important, Targums,4 some of which are as old as, or older than the Christian era, ,vere made from all the books of the Ola Testalllent, but none are to be found of the Apocryphal books. We have Targums of the Law, Targums of the Prophets, Targunls of t.he Cherhu binl, but no Targums of the Apocrypha. Our evidence is now pretty nearly complete; ,ve nlay recapi- tulate it thus. 'Ve have the threefold division of the Scriptures mentioned- in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, br Philo, by our blessed Lord, by Josephus; and the same ,ve find in the time of Jeronle, and anlong all the tT ews fronl that tilne to tlJÍs. 'Ve know that the number of books contained ill these three classes was, in the time of Josephus, t,venty--t\Vo. The same nurnbf'r we find recounted by Origep and Jerome, as belonging 1 'That aU things must be fulfilled, which were "\vrittt"'n in the Law of ::\Ioses, and in the Pr()phét , and in the Psalms.' -Luke xxiv. 44. 2 According to the division which existed in ollr Saviour's time, which pro- bably was the same as that in the time ()f Josephus, there would have been but four books in the Chethubim or Hagio- grapha-viz., Psalrm;;, Proverbs, Ecclesi- agtes, Solomon's Song. 3 See this proved.-Cosin, Hisl. of Canon, ch. III. 4 The Targums were translations or paraphrases of the Scriptures, made from the original Hebrew into ChaJdee, when Hebrew had become a dead lanO'uan'e, which was the case soon after the et;rn from captivity. They were read in the synagogues, and formed the ordinary in- struments for instruction of the Jews of Palestine in the Scriptures. 152 TH E SUFJ1'ICIENCY OF HOLY S(fRIPTUR.ES [ART. .YI. to the Jewish Canon; and Origen and Jerome give us their names, \vhich are the names of the books in the present Jewish Canon. The Canon in the time of Josephus, ,vho was born A.D. 37, must have been the same as that in the time of Christ: as its security was guaranteed by tbe existence of the Temple copy, to say nothing of the scrupulous fidelity of the Jews, \vho, as Philo tells us, would have died ten thousand times, rather than alter one word. The Targums, 'which are paraphrases of the books in the present IIebrew Canon, confirnl the same inference; and some of then1 are as old as the time of our Lord. Now we knovv exact!v how the threefold division em braced 01 the books of the Hebrew Canon. vVe know how in Origen's time and in Jerome's time, the twenty-two books C\vhich was also tbe number in Josephus' tin1e) embraced the books of the Hebre,v Canon. We kno,,"', too, that Ielito, less than 100 years after Josephus, gave, as the books received in the East, a catalogue corresponding exactly ,vith the same Hebrew Canon. :ßnt no imaginable ingenuity call ever make the books of the Apocrypha fit into any of these divisions, or agree with any of these lists. vVhen we add to this that our Lord and His Apostles, when they gave the sanction of Divil1e authority to the Jewish Scriptures, quote perpetually nearly all the books of the Hebrew' Canon, and fluote none besides; no link in the chain seems wanting to prove, that the J e\vish Canon is that to which Christ appealed, and ,vhich He has commended to us as the 'Vord of God. The history of the Septuagint explains the only difficulty in the question. It is briefly as follows: In the reign of Ptolemy Philac1elphus this version was made at Alexandria. It is inlPossible that it could have then contained the books of the Apocrypha, inasnluch as these books were not 'written till after the date \v hen the Septuagint version 'vas made: none of then1 probably having been in existence till about t'Yo centuries before the Christian era. At what exact time the Apocryphal books ,vere written respectively, it is not easy to determine. None of them could have been written in Hebre'w, which had then become a dead language; though some may have been composed in Chaldee or Syriac, languages which in the New rrestanlent and in other writings are frequently called Hebrew. 1 1 The Book of Ecclesiasticus appears I 'tT esus the Son of Sirach of Jerusalem; , from ch. 1. 27, tt) have been written by and in the Prologue of his grandson the SEC. I1.J }"OR SALVATION. 153 Howe'Ter, when these apocryphal books \vere written, if in Greek, the originals, if in Chaldee, the Greek translations were, in all probability, inserted into the Septuagint, along ,vith the still Illore sacred books of Scripture, by the Alexandrian Jews, who in their state of dispersion, 'vere naturally zealous about all that concerned their religion and the history of their race. The places, 'which they assigned to the various books, were dependent either on the subject or on the supposed author. Thus the Song of the rrhree Children, the Story of Susanna, and the History of Bel and the Dragon, seemed connected \vitb, and "vere therefore added to, the book of Daniel. The Greek Esdras seemed naturally to be connected with the Greek translation of the book of Ezra. 'fhe Book of 'Yisdonl, being caned the .\"Visdom of Solomon, lvas added to the Song of Solomon; and the book of Ecclesiasticus, called the "\Visdoln of Jesus the Son of Sirach, was placed after the 'Yisdom of Solonlon. No doubt the Alexandrian Jews ascribed great inlportance to the books which they thus inserted in the Septuagint 'Tersion ; but Philo, "ho was an Alexandrian Je\y, and who 'vas a con- temporary of our Lord's, never quotes them for the purpose of establishing any doctrine; and it is certain, that none of then} ever got into the Hebrew Canon; nor were they ever received by the Jews of Palestine, alnongst \v horn our blessed Sayiour taught, and to whose Canon, therefore, He gave the sanction of His Divine authority. Now the Fathers of the Christian Church for the first three centuries were, with the exception of Origen, profoundly ignorant of llebrew. It ,vas natural, therefore, that they should have adopted the Greek version as their Old Testament: and, accordingly, it formed the original of their Latin version. Hence the books of the Old Testament current in the Church were, in Greek the Septuagint, in Latin a translation from the Greek Septuagint; both therefore containing the A pocryphal books. It was not till the time of Jerome, that a translation was made fron1 the Hebrew; and hence in the eves of Hlanv the whole collection of books con- oJ 01 wurdR of the book are said to have been Eßpaià-Tt ')...E-y6p.H1a, written in Hebrew. However, Hebrew was then a dead lan- guage, and the Jews spoke Syro-Chalde(', which was what St. Paul spoke when he addressed hi countrymen' in the Hebrew dialect,' iv 'Eßpa1'ôt Ôtal\ÉKTw, Acts xxii. 2. Tt is also !'aid that the . first book of M:wcabees was written in Hebrew; but as some of the events recorded in it hap- pened within ISO years from the birth of Christ, it must have been the same Chal- dee. Tobit also anù Judith are said by Jerome, in his Prefaces to these books, to ha\'e been written Chaldæo se1'rnonc, though it has been thought the Chaldee was onl.r a translation. 134 THE SCFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. tained in the Septuagint and the old Latin translation was natl1ral1y viewed ,vith the re pect due to Scripture. l\lany indeed of the fathers, as ,ve shall S0011 see, knew the difference between the Looks of the Hebrew Canon aHd those of the Apocrypha: and kne\v that the former were Divine, the latter of inferior ::Lnthority. But still many quoted alnlost indiscrin1inately franl both; and cspecially St. Augustine is appeaJecl to, as having given a catalogue of the Old Testanlent Scriptures, which contained the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdolll, Ecclesiasti us. and the two books of Iaccabees.l III the Latin Church the name of Augustine stood deservedly high. Though Jerome's labours showed the fallacy of Augustine's opinion, though the Greek fathers never received the Apocryphal books so carelessly as the Latin fathers had dOllp, anrl though even j\ ugustine himsel f was a\vare of the difference between thenl and the books of the IIebrew Canon; yet the Apocryphal books still keep their place in the Latin Vulgate, and ,vere ulti- nlately adopted by the Council of Trent, as part of the Canon of Scripture. Yet as we can thus easily trace the origin of the Inistake, and thereby see that it was a n1Ïstake, we need not be led a,vay \vith it. This, necessarily very brief, sketch of the grounds on which ,ve believe the present IIebrew Canon to be that to which our Lord gave His sanction, tl1ay be sufficient to show, on what we rest our belief concerning the sacred books of the Old Testament. From such historical evidence ,ve know, that the Scriptures, \vhieh tbe Lord Jesus appealed to, authorized, ana confirmed, were the books contained in our IIebrew Bibles. 2 \Ve ask no lllore, and \ve can receive no rnore. On such a matter the appeal to such an authority must be final. }"'a,thers and Councils, nay, 'the Holy Church throughout all the world,' .would be as nothing, if t hell' voice could be against their Lord's. \Ve are not, huwever, in this or in any other question, insen- sible to the value (If the opinions of the fathers, still less of the consent of t.hs early Church. And though. we can plainly see \vhat, in this case, nlay have led some of the fathers into error; ,ve rejoice in being aLle to show, that, in the main, their testinJony is decisive for wbat we have already, on other grounds, hown to be the truth. I Augustin. De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. II. c. 8; Opera, Tom. III. Pt. I. p. 23. Passages of the Xew Testament, where such authority is given to the Old, are such as :Nlatt. v. 18. Luke xvi. 29 ; xxiv. 27, 44. .John v. 39. Rom. iii. I, 2 ; ix. 4. 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. SEC. I1.J FOl{ SA I.. V ATION. 155 Now in the second century, A.D. 147, Justin l\Iartyr, himself a native of Palestine, in his Dialogue with Trypbo the J e"-, though he }'eproves hiIn for many other things, never reproaches him for rejecting any of the Canonical Scriptures.! 11elito, A.D. 160, ,ve have already seen, ,vent. to Pa1e tine to be satisfied conct'rning the Canon of the OlJ Testament, and reports that it contained, according to the Christians of that country, the bJoks of our Hebrew Bible. 2 Origen, A.D. 220, the nlost learned of the early fathers, the famous conlpjler of the IIexapla; hinlself a native of and resident at Alexandria, ,vhere the Septuagint version was Il1ade and received, gives us the sanle account as lelito.3 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 340, gives a perfect catalogue of the books of Scripture, enumerating the books of the Old Testament, just as the English Church receives them now, and mentioning a.s not canonicaZ 4 the Wisdonl of 8010111on, the "\Visdon1 of Sirach Esther (i.e., the ..Apocryphal Book of Esther), J uc1ith. and Tobit. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, in Prance, A.D. 350, ntnnbers the books of the Old Testament as twenty-two. and gives the names of the very books of the Hebrew :Dible used in the English Church, saying that SODle persons had added to this number Tobit and Judith, to make up twenty-four, the number of the Greek letters, instead of twenty-t\VO, the number of the Hebrew. 6 Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 360, in his Catechetical Lectures, exhorts the catechumens to abstain from the Apocrypbal, and to read only thE' Canonical books of Scripture; giving as the reason, '\Vhy shouldest thou, who knowest not those which are acknow- ledged by all, take needless trouble about those which are questioned? ' He Inakes the number of the books twenty-two, and gives the salne list as Athanasius, i.e., the anlE' as the English 1 Cosin. 0" il,f' ntllOn, ch. n". 2 Euseb. 11. E. IV. 26. 3 Euseb. H. .E. VI. 25. 4 'ETE'pa ßíß")ua TOVTWV g w(hll. OÙ Ka- 1I01lLtóI.JÆlIa p.f.1I, TfTV7rWP.fllo. of. 7rapà TWV 7raTÉpwv. 5 Festal. Epist. XXXIX. Up. Tom. II. p. 9 61 , edit. Bened. Tom. II. p. 38. Colon. 16 6. The only thing to be observed in the Catalogue of Athanasil1s is, that he joins Baruch and the Epistle. with Jeremiah; into which mi::;take manvof the fathers fell from the connexion hich was made between those books in the LXX. and La.tin; though :-:ome think that nothing I more is meant, than what i:s inserted in the book of J preIlliah concerning Baruch, and tQH Epistle contained in the twenty- ninth chapter of the prophecy of Jeremiah -not the apocryphal books of these names. See Cosin, eh. VI. 6 Hilar. Proleg. in Libnun Psal'1nO'1'urn, 15, edit. Benedict. p. 9. His Catalogue is: Fi "e Books of l\-loses, 5. Josh ua, I. ..Tudges and Ruth, I. Samuel, I. King , I. Chronicle , I. Ezra (including K ehemiah), I. Psalm , I. Proverbs, I. Ecclesiastes, I. Song of Songs, r. l\Iinor Prophets, I. Isaiah, r. Jeremiah (with Lamentations and Epi tle), I. Daniel, I. Ezekiel, I. Job, 1. E thèr, I. In all, 22. 15G THE SUFFICIEX('Y OF HOLY CRlrT(JnES [ART. \'1. Canon, with the addition of B_lruch and t he I pistle to t.he book of Jeremiah. l The Council of Laodicea, held about A.D. 364, in its fifty-ninth Canon, gives exactly the same list as Athanasius and Cyril. The Canons of this Council ,vere approved by nanle in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo. 2 Epiphanius, Bishop of Constance, in Cyprus, A.D. 374, three times nurnbers the books of the Old Testament, as we do; and mentions the books of \Visdom and Ecclesiasticus as 'doubtful ,vritings,' and not counted as among the sacred books, 'because they were never laid 11P in the Ark of the covenant.' 3 Gregory Nazianzel1, A.D. 376, gives a catalogue, which is the same as the Canon of the English Church: except that he does not 111ention Esther, ,vhich he probably includes in Ezra. 4 R uffinu , presbyter of Aguileia, A.D. 398, nun1 bers the books of the Old Testament as the English Church does at present: Jeronle, the conternporary and friend of Ruffinus, gives us, as ".e have seen, the same catalogue a..; the Church of England now receives, and enumerates Wisdolll, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the J[accabees, as Apocryphal books. 6 Vv c have now arrived at the close of the fourth century, and have found that the whole chain of evidence down to that period is in favour, and most decidedly in favour, of the Canon of the ] nglish Church. It ,,,in be no argument against such testimony, that many of the fathers quote the L\pocryphal books, or even quote them as of authority. 'Ve have already seen what circunu tances led the early Cheistians, and especially those of the Latin Church, into a somewhat excessive respect for the Apocr} phal 'writings, contained in the Septuagint and the ancient I atin ,r ersions. At the end of the fourth century, and contemporary 'with J erome, lived Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. In his book, ])e ])octrina Christ r in11a,1 he enumerates the books of the ',vhole Canon of Scripture.' He reckons in t.his Canon the books of Tobit, J uclith, two books of :Thlaccabees, "TÜSdOlll, and Ecclesiasticus. The authority of Augustine is very great. 1: et is it not for a moment to be weighed against the testimony of the four preceding centuries, eyen if his testimony was undoubted and uniform. Yet 1 Cyril, lIieros. Catech. IY. 35. 2 Concil. Laodicen. Can. ux. COllci1. Qninisext. Can. II. 3 Adv. HærC8. V. LXXVI. De l1fensu,1'is et PonderÛJUs. Tom. II. pp. 162, 180. 4 Greg. N azianz. CarIn. XXXIII. 5 Expositio in SymlJolum Apos'olorwm, 36. Ad Calccm Uplr. Cyprian. 6 In Pl.ologo Galmto, Tom. I. p. 322. I Ed. Bened. 7 Lib. II. c. 8, eùit. Benedict, Tom. III. p. 23. SEC. I1.J .FUR SALYATIOX. 157 this is by no means the case. In the very passage abovE' referred to, he speaks of a diversity of opinion concerning the sacred books, and advises, that those should be preferred, which were received by all the Churches; that, of those not always receiveJ, those which the greater number and more in1portant Churches received, should be preferred before those which were sanctioned by fewer and less authoritative Churche::;.l But, l110reOVer, passages frolll his other writings tell strongly against the canonicity of the books commonly called the ...-\pocrypha. Thus he speaks of the Jews being ,, ithont prophets fronl the captivity, and after the death of !lalachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra, until Christ. 2 He tells us, that 'the Jews did not receive the book of )Iaccabees, as they did the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gives testimony, as to His own witnesse.s.' 3 He tells us, that the book of Judith was never in the Canon of the J ews. 4 He distinguishes between the books which are certainly Solomon's, and the books of 'Yisdom and Ecclesiasticus, to which custom has given the sanction of his nan1e, out .which learned men agreed were not his. 5 And 111any of her proofs have been brought frol11 his works, to show, that he was at least doubtful concerning the authority of these books, notw.ithstanding his catalogue, which included them. 6 We now conle to the Council of Carthage, at which it is said that Augustine was present. 'fhe date of this Council is disputed. It is usually considered as the third Council of Carthage, held A.D. 397. It enumerates the books of Scripture as ,ve have them now, together with vVisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two books of laccabees.7 If Augustine was present, it is probable that we ought to interpret the decree of the Council with the same restrictions with which ,ve plainly ought to interpret the words of 1 In canonicis autem Scripturis Ec- clesiarum Catholicarum quam plurium auctoritatem sequatur; inter quas sane illæ sint quæ Apostolieas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igiturhuncmoùum in Scripturis canonicis, ut eas, quæ ab omnibus accipiuntur Ec- clesiis Catholicis, præponat eis quas quæ- dam non accipiunt: in eis vero quæ non accipiuntur ab omnibus, præponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis Ecclesiæ tenent.-Ibid. 2 De Ciritat. Dei, Lib. XVII. cap. 24. Tom. vu. p. 487. Toto illo tempore ex quo redierunt ùe Babyl(lDia, post Iala- chiam, Aggæum, et Zachariam, qui tunc prophetaverunt, et Esdmm, non babue- runt prophetas u8que ad Salvatoris adven- tum, &c. 3 Contra Gaud. Lib. I. c. 31, S 3 8 , Tom. IX. p. 655. 4 De Civil. Dei, Lib. XVIII. c. 26, Tom. VII. p. 508. In libro Judith: quem !"ane in Canone Scripturarum J udæi non recepisse dicuntur. 5 De Civil. Dei, Lib. XVII. c. 20, Tom. VII. p. 483. Propter eloquii nonnullam similitudinem, ut Salomon is dicantur, ob- tilluit consuetudo: non autem esse ips ius, non dubitant doctiores. 6 The whole question is fully sifted by Bp. Cosin, Scholastic History of the Canon, ch. VII. 7 Conc. Carthag. III. Can. XL VII. 158 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. St. Augustine, ,vho, if he be not altogether inconsistent with him- self, nlust assign a lower degree of authority to the doubtful books than to those which all received. But if it be not so, we must still renlem bel' that the Council of Carthage was a provincial, not a. general Synod; that it was liable to err; and that in nlatter of history, if not in 111atter of doctrine, it actually did err; for by numbering five books of Solomon, it assigned to his authorship Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, \vhich could not have been written for centuries after his death. We cannot therefore bow to the authority of the Council of Carthage, even if that of St. Augustine be joined to it, against the testimony of all preceding ages, and above all, against what has been sho\vn to be the witness of our Lord Himself. . The Council of Trent, however, in its fourth session, stamped ,vith its authority all books, which had been enumerated by the Council of Carthage, with the addition of the Book of Baruch: and added an anathema against everyone, who should not receive the whole Canon so put forth, and all the traditions of the Church besides. 1 Thus Jid the Churches of the Roman Comnlunion set themselves against the Churches of God in the times of old, and against all the r st of Christendom in the present time. They, by inlplication, condemned those ancient fathers, who, as we bave seen, alnlost with one voice preferred the J e,vish Scriptures to the "'- pocryphal writings of the Septuagint. They anathen1atized, not only the Anglican and all other reformed Churches, but as ,vell the ancient Churches of the East, who with us reject the Apocrypha, and adhere to the Scriptnres, ,vhich ,vere sanctioned by the Lord. 2 We nlight speak nlore strongly of the danger of , cursing whom God hath not cursed,' but ,ve may rest satisfied with the assurance, that 'the curse causele s shall not come.' 3 1 Concil. Trid. Sess. IV. Decret. I. Sacrorulll vero librorum indicp.lD huic de- creto adscribendum cemmit, ne cui dubi- tatio tiubOl'irj possit, quillam sint, qui ab ipsa Synoò!) 8uscipiuntur. Sunt vero infra Hcripti. Te::;t. V. Qninqlle l\Ioxii':. .Jos. Judic., Ruth, 4 Reg.. 2 Para1ip., E dræ I et 2 (qui dicitur Nehem.), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalterium David (CL. P:;a1.), Parab., Ecclesiastes, Cantic. Canticorum, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esaias, Hiere- mias cum Baruch, Ezech., Daniel, 12 Proph. l\1:inores, Duo Machabæorllm. Test. N. Quattuor Evangelia, &c. &c. Si quis :mtem libros ipsos inteóros cum omnibus sui::; parLous, prout ill Ecclesia Catholica legi convenerunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et tra- ditiones prædictas scie1l8 et prudens con- tempserit, anathema sit. :1 See Suicer, s. V., 'Ypaqrf). See also Bp. Wordsworth's Lectures on the Canon, Appendix B. No. IV., where documents are given, showing the agreement of the Eastern with the Anglican Church on the Canon of Scripture. 3 On the Canon of the Old Testament, f;ee Suicer's Thesaur.us, s. v. 'Ypapf]; Ep. Cosin's Scholastic History of the Canon; SEC. I1.J )1-'OR SALYATIO . .15[) II. The Canon of the N e'v 'Testament rests on the sanie authority as the Canon of the Old. As ;'eaards the number of books which are to be admitted as b Canonical in the New Testament, there is no difference between the ...t\..nglican and a!lY other branch of the Clllll'ch of Christ. ì et Ül the lnode of settlinO" the Canon there is SOlne difference. The o Roman Church holds, that we receive the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New 'Testanlent, simply on the authoTity of the Church. It is said that the Canon was not fixed till the end of the fourth , century; and it is inferred that the Church then, by its plenary authority, determined wbich bo }ks were Scripture and which were not. Thus virtually the Church has been made to bold a position superior to the Scriptures, as not only a ' witness and keeper,' but also a judge' of IIo]y 'Vrit.' And though in the first instance such authority is conceded to the Church of the fourth century; yet, by ilnplication and consequence, the same authority i claimed for tbe Church of this clay; that is, not for the Church Universal, but for that portion of it \vhich has claimed, as its exclusive title, the name of Catholic-i.c., the Church of Rome. On the otber hand, some Protestants have been satisfied to rest the authority of the books of the New Testan1ent on internal evidence, especially on the \vitness ,vhich the Spirit bears \vith our own spirit:; that they are the Word of God. The franlers of the Belgic Confession, for instance, distinctly assert that they receive the Scriptures, 'not so Inuch because the Church receives an(1 :5anctions theln as Canonical, as because the Spirit witnesses \vit h our consciences that t,hey proceeded from God; and especially be- cause they, of thenlselves, attest their own authority anJ sanctity.' 1 Row the Church of England rejects altogether neither the authority of the Church, nor the internal testiIllony of the Scrip- tures. Yet she is not satisfied to rest her faith solely on the authoritative decree of any Cuuncil in the fourth or fifth, still less in any later cent.nry: neither can she consent to forego all Bp. :\Iarsh, Lectu1'es, Part. VI. on the .Au- thority of the Old 'l'cstarnent; Bp. :Marsh's COrrLparative riew. chap. v. Bp. \V ords- worth. in hi;5 Hulsean Lectures on the Canon of Scripture, has thrown into the AppeTHlix the most important pa.ssages on the subject from the J f-'wish and eal'ly Christian writers, in a form more con- venient than that in which they may be seen in Bp. Oosin's most valuable work, as in the latter they are scattered through the notes, whilst in Ep. 'V ùrdsworth's book they are given in a compact form at the end. 1 Idque non tam quod Ecclesia illos pro canonicis recipiat et comprobet : quam quod Spiritus Sanctus nostris cOllHcientiis testetur illos a Deo emanasse: et eo maxime quod ip:si pt.iam per se sacram h'iHC suam authoritatem et sanctitatem testf-'ntur atque compmbent. - Confcss. Bel[lica, Art. v.; Sylloge Confessiotlum, p. 328; Jones, ()n the Canon, Part I. ch. VI. 160 THE SUFFI()I NCY OF HOLY SUnIPTUl:ES [AltT. \'"1. external testiulony, and trnst to an internal witness alone; knowing that, as Satan can transform himself into an angel of light, so it is possible that what seems the guidance of God's Spirit 11lay, if not proved to be such, be really the suggestion of evil spirits. Hence, \ve think that there is need of the external \vord, and of the Church, to teach, lest ,vhat seerllS light within be but dark- ness counterfeiting light; and \ve know that thp fertile source of almost every fanatical error, recorded in history, has Leen a reli- ance on inward illulnination, to the neglect of outward testinlony.l The principle then, \vhich we assert, is this: that Christ gave authority to His A post les to teach and to write, that He promised them infallible guidance, and that therefore all JA_postolical writings are divinely inspired. We have only to inquire what \vritings \vere Apostolical; and for this purpose \ve have recourse to testi- nlony, or, if the word he preferred, to tradition. rrhe testill10ny or tradition of the primitive Church is the ground on which the fathers thenlselves received the books of the e\v Tesbnnent as Apostolical: and, on the same ground, we receive theIne vVe gladly add to this every \veight, \vhich can be derived frOlll internal evidence, or from the authority of early councils; for "\ve kno\v that no argument should be neglected, ,vhich may fairly confinn our faith. J311t the first ground on ,vhich we receive the New Testa- nlent is, that it can be proved to have come froln the pen or the dictation uf tbe Apostles of Christ, and that to those _Apostles Christ promised infallibility in matters of faith. I. rrhe promise of inspiration and infallibility appears in such passages as the following: 'The Comforter, ,vhich is the Holy Ghost, \vhom the Father "will send in l\Iy N arne, TIe shall teach you all things, and bring a.ll things to your rernembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.' John xiv. 26. , When He, the Spirit of truth, is COUle, He \yill guide you into all truth, and He will show you things to come.' John xvi. 13. C It is Dot ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.' rark xiii. I I. And w hat Christ promised, His Apostles claimed. They speak of having the deep things of God revealed to them by His Spirit, 1 There is a passage much to the pur. pose, quoted by Jones (On the Canon, Part I. ch. VI.) from the Preface to Bax. ter's Saints' Rest. 'For my part, I con- fes , I could never boast of any such tes. timony or light of the Spirit nor reason neither, which, without human testimony, would have made me believe, that the book of Canticles is canonical and written by Solomon, and the book of Wisdom apocryphal, and written by Philo, &c. Nor could I have known all or any his- torical books, such as Joshua, J udge , Ruth, Samuf'l, King:':, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c., to be written by divine in piration, but by tradition,' &c. SEC. II. ] FOR SALVA'rION. 161 I Cor. ii. 10. They declare their own Gospel to be the truth, and anathematize all who preach any other Gospel, Gal. i. 8. They speak of 'the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men,' as being' now revealed to the Apostles and prophets by the Spirit,' Ephes. iii. 4, 5; and treat the Gospel as a faith' once for all delivered to the saints,' Jude 3. If therefore we believe the New rrestament at all, ,ve believe that Jesus Christ gave a promise of inspiration to the Apostles; and that the "'-\.l)ostles claimed the promise, professed to have received the inspiration, and accordingly assumed to be the only infallible depositaries of the doctrines of the Gospel. 2. vVe have therefore, in the next place, simply to determine I the genuineness of the writings, which profess to be Apostolical, and QUI' labour will be finished. If we kno,v that any book 'was I \vritten by an Apostle, we know that, a.s rega.rds doctrine and faith, it is inspired and infal1iLle; and therefore we receive it into the Canon of Scripture. rrhe primitive Church acted on this principle; and ,ve act upon the same. forp or less, all ancient writings must be subjected to a test like this. If we wish to know whether certain books were written by Cicero, or Cæsar, or Tacitus; we examine the evidence, and decide according to it. The sinlple fact, that they have ever been received as theirs, is a strong presu111ption that they pro- ceeded frorn them. But still \ve mostly require further proof. It is infinitely more important to be assured that a book was written by St. John or St. Paul, than to kno,,, that one was wTitten by Cæsar or Cicero. And accordingly God, in IIis providence, has I afforded us far more abundant evidence concerning the gen uine- ness of the different books of the New 1 1 estament, than can be found concerning any other ,vritings of antiquity. That evidence is principally dependent on tesfin ony, but is not resolvable into lnere authm'ity. It is the 'witness of the Church, not nlerely its sanction, to ,vhich we appea1. Now the position of the Church in its earliest ages \yas such, that its witness on this subject is singularly unexceptionable. During the very lifetimes of the Apostles, it bad spread through the civilized world. Europe, Asia, Africa, had all heard the voice of the Apostles, and all had flourishing Churches long before the death of the last of that sacred body. rrhe books, which the A_postles had written, were therefore not merely to be found in one or two obscure corners of the world, but they \vere treasured up, and read and reverenced in Rome and Alexandria, in Antioch and Ephesus, M 162 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. in Corinth and Thessalonica, very probably in Spain and Gaul anù Arabia, perhaps even in the remote region of Britain itself. There were therefore witnesses in every corner of the globe. Even ,vhere the warriors of I{ome had not carried conquest, the postles of Christ had carried good tidings of peace. In n1any of these Churches, the writers of the sacred books were 'well knû\vn and constant visitors; so that Epistles as froln theIn, or Gospels 'with their names, could not have been palulec1 ûff upon their converts, who could continually have rectified errors of this kind by direct appeal to the living sources of Divine instruction. The writers of the New rrestament then1selves took care, that ,vhat they \\-Tote should be \videly circulated, and extensively kno\vn, when first they \vrote it. St. Paul bids the Colossians send his epistle to them, to be read as well in the Church of Laodicea (CoI. iv. 16). He charges the Thessa]onians, that they should suffer his epistle to be 'read to all the holy brethren' (I 'l'hess. v. 27). vVe are inforlned concerning the Gospels, that they 'were 'written, the first by an Apostle, for the use of the Church of J udea ; 1 the second, by St. 1Iark, under the dictation of St. Peter,2 for the use of those Christians an10ngst whon1 St. Peter had preached, and \vho wished to have the substance of his preaching preserved in ,vriting; 3 that St. Luke, the cOll1panion of St. Paul, ,vrote his Gospel at St. Paul's dictation; 4 and that St. John ,vrote his in his last days at Ephesus, baving first seen and approved the other Gospels, writing his O"wn as supplementary to them. 5 rrhese and sÌ1nilar considerations show that the ,vritings of the Ne\v Testament 111USt have had a great degree of publicity, and therefore great protection against forgery and fraud, from their earliest publication. Every separate Church and every separate city to which they spread, was a guard against corruption, and a check upon its neigh bourse But at the same tÍlne, wide as the en1 pire of Christ had spread, it \va s not then, as no\v, a collection of disunited communities, but one living, intercommunicating \vhole. The early records ,vith one voice proclain1, that all Christen.c1oIll ,vas as one n1an. There ,vas a circulation of life-blood through the whole. A Christian could not go from Roule to Alexandria, or frolll Alexandria to Ephesus, but he bore a talisman with hÍJn, \vhich made hin1 \velcomed as a brother. And the degree of inter- 1 Euseb. H. E. III. 24; Iren. III. I. 2 Iren. III. I.; III. 2. 3 Euseb. I. 15; VI. 14, on the authu- rity of Clemens Alexandrinus. 4 Iren. III. I. :; Euseb. III. 24; Hieron. De l"ir. lllustl'il/us, s. v. J oannes. SEC. I1.J FUR SALVATI OX. 163 course which took place in the very earliest tinJes behyeen far distant Churches, is apparent by the letter of Clemens of ROBle to the Church of Corinth, by the solicitude of Ignatius for the diffe- rent cities to which he wrote on the eve of his martyrdom, by the journey of Polycarp from Smyrna to Ronle to discuss the Pa chal controversy, by the appointment of 1renæus, a native of Asia, to the chief bishopric in Gaul, and by numerous similar facts. "\Ve have therefore the following securities, that the Churches from the first would preserve the writings of the ....lpostles safe and in their integrity. (I) The presence of the ..tlpostles with them, and frequent intercourse aUlong theIl1, whilst the sacred books were in writing. (2) The publicity given to these books frolll the first. (3) The wide diffusion of the Church throughout the world, so that copies ,yould be llltlltiplied everywher , and one part of the Church ,voulc1 be a check against forgeries in another. (4) The intimate communion of every part of Christendonl with the rest, so that every facility was afforded to every portion of the Church, of knowing what were the ....-\.postles' writings, and of guarding against mistake. (5) To these we lnay add, that there were divisions in nlan: Churches even froln the \.postles' days (see I Cor. iii. 3, 4; Gal. ii. 4', &c.), which necessarily created independent ,vitnesses, even in individual Churches, each party being a check on the other. (6) And lastly, in God's Providence the .Apostle St. John lived at the great city of Ephesus, for thirty years after the works of the other ..Apostles had been written; and ,vas thus living in the midst of the civilized world, as a final and authoritative court of appeal, if there could be any doubt as to which were ....-\.postolicaJ, and which Apocryphal ,vl'itings. Can we doubt, then, that the primitiye Church was a body so remarkably constituted, that its testimony united, on this par- ticular subject, the singularly opposite n1erits of unanill1Ïty and yet of mutual independence; that it enjoyed the most extraordinary powers for knowing the truth, with no interest in corrupting it, and without the power to corrupt it, even if it had the will ? "\Ve conclude, therefore, that the Scriptures, which the prin1Ítive Church held as -\.postolical, nlu t have been so. .And we 1na,. add that, owing to the ,vide diffusion of the Church throu thou"t the worlù, it ,vould have been impossible for a forger in after times to pass off his forgery on the Church; for, if it ,vas received in one place, it would speedily be rejected in another, and convicted of :\1 2 IG4 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. 'T1. falsehood on the sure ground of novelty. The primitive Church, therefore, ,vas singularly fitted by Providence to be a ,vitness and keeper of Holy Writ: even a witness and a keeper of it against future as ,veIl as present corruptions. It is ÏIl1possible to give more than a very brief sketch of the evidence \vhich we derive from the early Church, thus qualified to bear testin10ny. 'Ve may classify it in the following order :- (I) fanuscripts of the original. (2) ,r ersions in numerous languages. (3) Catalogues. (4) Quotations and references, and cOlnmentaries. (I) \Ve have manuscripts of the Ne\v Testament Scriptures in very great numbers, preserved to TIS in different quarters of the globe. The testimony ,y hich these lSS. bear all tends to the same point-.yiz., the general integrity of the text of the New Testanlent, as ,ve have it now. These lS8. indeed are so far different from each other, as to be independent \vitnesses; for, though they agree in preserving the same general text, they differ in verbal min utiæ, and have various readings, like ISS. of all ancient authors; and it is thought that these I88. can be classed into different families, so that each family bears a line of testimony distinct from the others. Thus Griesbach distinguished the Greek :1\188. into three distinct texts; the Alexandrine, which he found to corre- sponù ,vith the reading of the famous Codex Alexandrinus and ,vith the quotations of Origen, the great Alexandrian critic; the Byzantine, including those 1S8. which in their peculiarities agree ,,,ith the :1\18S. ,vhich have been brought to us direct from Con- stantinople: the , y estern, to which belong the 1\1SS. ,vhich have been chiefly found in Europe, and which in their peculiarities resem ble the Latin version. Other critics (as 1\fattbäi, Scholz, &c.) have l11ade different arrangements and classifications; but all agree in the observation, that 've have distinct streams of ISS. coming down to us fron1 the most relnote antiquity, and preserving in the main the saIne text of the New Test unent, though differ ng in nlinute particulars, sufficient to constitute then1 in some degree independent \vitnesses, and existing in the different quarters of the globe. It is true, the most ancient of these :ßlSS. is probably not older than the fourth century: but it is "ell known to all sch01ars, how very ancient a :ß1S. of the fourth century is considered, and how very few 1\1S8. in the ,vorld have anything approaching to such antiquity; and it must be borne in mind that a lS. of the fourth century represents a text of much earlier date, from which SEC. Ir.J FOR SALVA TIOX. IG5 it must have been copied; and when we have many independent 1\188., and some of them of nearly the same great antiquity, we know that they respectively and independently bear witness to the existence of an older text or texts, to which they owe their original. Now here is one evidence of the genuineness of our New Tes- tament writings. rrhey are preserved to us in innumerable :ßlSS. in all parts of the world; )188. whose authority is of the highest possible character. The books, which are thus preserved, are not the Apocryphal, but the generally received Canonical books of the New rrestament. (2) \Ve have a great number of ancient versions of the New Testament Scriptures, in the various languages which were ver- nacular in the early ages of the Church. Thus we bave versions in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, ..Arabic, Etbiopic, Armenian, and other languages. The versions which are supposed to have the greatest claim to antiq nity, are the Latin and the Syriac. That there was a very ancient Latin version, there can be no manner of doubt: for the rapid diffusion of the Gospel in Europe and Africa made it a matter of great consequence that tbe New Testament Scriptures should speedily be translated into the Latin tongue. The ancipnt Italic may, therefore, very probably have been nlade in the days of the Apostles. The only difficulty of importance is the many alterations which the Latin versions subsequently underwent, which make it hard to ascertain ,vhat :\18. fairly repre- sents the most ancient text. Yet all the Latin versions of any authority at present in existence, give their testimony, in the main, to the integrity of the text of the ew Testament, as we have it now. The Peschito Syriac is by nlost scholars considered to be the oldest of all the versions; and it has tbe adyantage of being a version from the Greek into the vernacular tongue of our Lord and His Apostles. It is by many thought to be a work of the first century, and may have been seen by the -\.postle St. John. The Syrians theu1selves hold the trarlition, that it ,vas made by St. l\lark. The te5tilnony which it bears concerning the Canon of the New Testament 1s most satisfactory, so far as it goes. It con- tains, in literal translation, the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. J aUles, the first Epistle of St. Peter, and the first of St. John -that is to say, all our present Canon, except the Apocalypse, the Epistle of St. Jude, the second of St. Peter, and the second and third of St. John. There are many reasons why so ancient a 1 G 6 THE SUFFICIEXCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [...tRT."\ I. version should not have contained these last-nanled books. If it ,vere maòe so early as has been supposed, some of the excluded books may not have bepn written. At all events, it is higldy probable that they ,\yere not all at once collected into one volume, and some shorter and later pieces are especially likely to have been at first omitted. 1 (3) 'Ve have, among very early fathers, regular catalogues of the books of the New Testanlent, as received and read in the Church. Origen, the most learned of the Greek fathers, "ho ,vas born A. D. I 85-i.c.: less than 90 years from the death of St. John-gives a catalogue exactly corresponding with our present Canon. 2 Euse bius, another most learned and aCCllrate inq nirer, born at Cæsarea, in Palestine, A.D. 2 ïO, gives n. catalogue exactly corre- ponc1ing \vith our own, except that he speaks of the Epistles of St. James, St. ..Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, as generally received yet doubted of by some; anel says of the Apocalypse, that tbough some doubted, yet others receiyed it: and he hinlself received it, and considered it as canonical. 3 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 326, and \vho therefore must have been b01"n in the third century, gives a catalogue exactly corresponding ,vith ours. 4 Cyril, Bishop of ..Jern-salenl, A.D. 349, gives tbe saIne list, w.ith the exception of the Apocalypse. 5 The Council of Laodicea, A. n. 364, gives the saIne list as St. Cyril. 6 Epiphanius, A.D. 370, gives the S1.me list as ours. 7 Gregory Kaziallzen, A.D. 3ï 5, who was born about the time of the Council of Nice, gives the sanle list as ours, omitting the A pocal ) pse. 8 Jerome, who ,vas born A.D. 329, was educated at Rome, and 1 On the importance of the Syriac ,'crsion, see Jones, On tlte Canon, Pt. I. eh. XI\7.-XIX. 2 Comment. in lUatt. :tp. Euseb.II.E. vi. 25. In this Catalogue he omits St. .J ames and St. Jude. But in his thirteenth Howilyon Genesis he Rpeaks of 1\1 n.tthew, 1\lark, Lnkf-', John, Paul, }>>pter, J mIleS. and .1 nde. as the authors of the bookF: of the K ew Tei'tament. In hi seventh Ho- mily on the hook of J oshun. if we may tru t the Latin translation of Ruffinus, in which alone it exists, he enumpratps all the books which we now havf'. Sep Jone8, On tlte Canon, Pt. I. ch. VIII. ; Bp.l\larsh's , Lect'U.rc. , Pt. V. nn...4 uthority of tlte .Ycw 'l'estament, Leet. XXIY.; Lardner, V 01. II. ch. XXXYIII. 11 11. E. lIT. 2,. 4 Ex Festali Epi.çt. XXXIX. Tom. II. p. 961 ; "Edit. Benedict. Tom. II. p. 38. Colon. 1686. 5 Catechcs. IV. 3 6 . He makes mpn- tion of certain forged Gospels, Ý/woerr[- 'Ypaøa. and a ('r be tt) the l\[anichæans a Gospel according to St. Thomas. (j Consi1. IÆ,',dicpn. Can. IX. 7 Ilærcs. 76. c. 5. 8 Gregor. aziauz. C(trm. XXXIII. I I I J SEC. l1.J :Fon SALYATIOX. 167 ,vas ordained presbyter at Antioch, A.D. 378, gives the same list as ours; except that he observes that most persons in the Latin Church do not consider the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's, though he hinlself held that it ,vas SO.l Ruffinus, presbyter of Aquileia, conternporary and friend of .J erome, gives the same catalogue as we no\v possess. 2 Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, A.D. 394 (born .A.D. 35 5), gives the fS:ll11e catalogue as ours. 3 1-'he Council of Cartha.ge (A.D. 397?) gives the sanle catalogue. 4 (4) But besides these formal catalogues, 'we have from the very first ages a series of quotations from, references and allu- sions to, Ollr sacred books, and in sonle cases regular harmonies and commentaries upon th m. rrhis is a \yide subject. It occupies the first five volumes in the octavo edition of Lardner's nlost valuable work on The Cre- dibility of the Gospel History. An account of it here lllust neces- sarily be brief. The writings of the postolical fathers are few in nunlber, and there are nlany reasons why they should not quote so frequently and fully from the books of the Ne\v Testament as those ,vho succeeded theln. Yet there are, nevertheless, a considerable number of references to, and quotations [ron1, the books which we possess as the New Testa.lnent Scriptures, even in them. Clement, \vho probably died before St. John, especial1y ascribes the first Epistle to the Corinthians to St. Paul. Words of onr blessed Lord, found in the Gospels of St. l\fatthe\v, St. :l\Iark, and St. Luke, are recommended with a high degree of respect, but without the nan1es of the Evangelists: and there is reason to think that he alludes to the Acts, the Epistle to the Romans, the t\VO Epistles to the Corinthians, and divers other of the Epistles of the New Testament.. 5 Ignatius, w 110 suffered Inartyrdom very soon after the death of St. John, in writing to the Ephesians, ascribes the Epistle to that Church to St. Paul, and cites several passages from it. He alludes to St. l\fatthew's, St. Luke's, and probably to St. John's Gospel; also, probably, to the Acts, Ron1ans, I and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, I Peter, I and 3 .J ohn. I Epist. L. ad Paulinmn, Opp. Tom. IV. p. 574 : Ed. Bened. On the Epistle to the Hebrew , see Dc riris Illust1.ibus, H. v. Paulus. 2 Exposit. 1.'n SY11tb. A postol. 36, ad calc. opere Cyprian. 3 De IJoctrin'l, Christiana, Lib. II. c. 8, Tom. III. p. 23. 4 Conci1. Carthag. III. Can. XLVII. fi Lardner, V 01. II. ch. II. 168 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. He appears also to have expressions denoting collections of the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles. 1 Polycarp, Bishop of Srnyrna, a disciple of St. John, quotes Philippians, and speaks of St. Paul as baving \vritten to that Church. He quotes also expressions from St. Iatthe'v and St. Luke, I Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians; and there are n1anifest references to Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Titl1othy, 1 Peter, 1 John, and probably to the Hebrews. 2 If Barnabas and Hermas are to be reckoned .A.postolical, although there are rnanifest references to the N e\v Testament in their works, yet the nature of their \vritings Inakes it n10st in1- probable that they should have quoted much from it, and accounts for their conlparative silence. 3 Papias, \vho was well acquainted with Polycarp, and, as sorne tbink, even with St. John, and was an anxious inquirer about all that had come [rotTI the Apostles and followers of Christ, bears testimony to the G-ospels of St. 1tlatthe\v and St. l\lark, quotes the first Epistle of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, appears to have a reference to the book of Acts, and there is every reason to sup- pose he received the Apocalypse. There are no ,yorks of his remaining, except a fragnlent preserved by Eusebius. 4 Justin 1artyr, the first of the fathers of whon1 we have any considerable remains, w.as converted to Christianity about A.D. 133, flourished chiefly about A.D. 1 40-i.e., 40 years afrer the death of St. ..John-and died a l11artyr about A.D. 164 or 167. He has nlany quotations from the four Gospels, ,vhich he refers to under the nalne of the )Jfe1noiTS of the Apostles. 5 lIe has, nloreover, referred to the Acts, nlany of the Epistles, and expressly assigns the Book of Revelation to St. John. In his first Apology, he tells us, that the nlemoirs of the Apostles [lnd the writings of the Prophets 1 Lardner, V 01. II. ch. v. Ibid. Vol. II. ch. VI. 3 Ibid. V 01. II. ch. I. IV. I El1seb. H. E. Lib. III. cap. XXXIX. ; Lardner, VoL II. ch. IX. :; 'A7rO/-tPTJp.,OPf;ú/-tUrU rWII 'Å7roO"róÀwlI, which he explains by a KUÀliraL f;va-y. -Yf;ÀW.-.J pol. I. p. 98, B. Bishop Mar8h in his dissertation On tlle Origin of the FoU?' Gospels, ch. XV., supposes that Justin does not allude to our present Gospels, but to a certain ori- ginal document, which thp Bishop snp- poses to have existed, which was early composed by the Apostles, and from which the Evangelists compiled their several Gospel . The words a KUÀf;îruL dJUYYfÀLU he considers an interpolation. He argue , that Al emoirs of the .Apostles more pro- bably mean a single work than a collection of works, and that Justin's quotations are not exa,ct from our present Gospels. His arguments are considered bJ Bishop Raye, Tr'l'itings of Justin lrfa'l.tyr, ch. VIII. The last-named prelate seems to have clearly proved that there is no reason for doubt. ing that our present Gospels are those cited by Justin, though, at times, he rather quotes the purport than the very words of a passage. SEC. II.] FOR SAL Y A.TION. 169 \vere read in the assemblies for public worship, and discourses mado upon them by the presiding presbyter. 1 Tatian, the disciple of Justin :ßlartyl', composed a harmony of the Gospels, caUed Diatessu1'on. 2 The circnla.r Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, concerning the sufferings of their martyrs in the reign of 1Iarcus Antoninus, uses language from the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, Acts, Romans, Philippians, I Peter, I JolIn, and the Revelation. 3 Irenæus, \vho was a hearer of Polycarp the disciple of St. J ohn,4 and became Bishop of Lyons, .A.D. 177, assures us that there 'were four Gospels and no more,5 all of which he has largely quoted, with the names of their writers, and has given an account of their cOlnposition. 6 lIe refers the ...\.cts to St. Luke. lIe quotes all St. Paa l' s Epistles, except Philemon and the Hebrews, also I Peter, I and 2 John, and the Apocalypse, ,vhich he expressly assigns to St. John the ..ìpostle,7 and pTobably the Epistle of St. James. ' His quotations from the Gospels are so nUluerous that they occupy more than twelve folio columns in the Index of Scripture passages annexed to the Benedictine edition.' 8 - Theophilus of Antioch (circ. A.D. I ïO) quotes St. )Iatthew, St. Luke, several of St. Paul's Epistles, and ,ve are assured by Eusebius, that in his work against Hermogenes he quoted the .Apocalypse. 9 Clement of ..t\.lexandria, who lived at the end of the second century, about 100 years after the completion of the Canon of Scripture, quotes all the four Gospels, and especially tells us the origin of St. ::ßIark's. He ascribes the .Acts to St. Luke: quotes all St. Paul's Epistles, except the short Epistle to Phile:non, and ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul, though he thinks it was ,vritten in Hebrew by St. Paul, and translated into Greek by St. Luke. 1o He quotes three of the Catholic Epistles-viz., I John, I Peter, Jude; for it is doubtf1Jl whether he refers expressly to St. James, or the second Epistle of St. Peter, and the second 1 pol. I. p. 98: Lardner , Vol. II. eh. x. ':1 Lardner, Vol. II. ch. XIII. 3 Ibid. ch. XVI. 4 Hieronym. De V.1. s. v. Irenæus. lS Adv. lIærcs. III. I I. 6 Ibid. III. I. 7 Ad?:. lJæ1'es. IV. 20; V. 26. The time of seeing the A poealypse is men- tioned v. 30-viz., toward::; the end of the reign of Domitian, if the word iwpá81'J is used of the 8eeing of the Apocalypse, not, as some think, of the duration of St. John's own life. s Ep. ::\Iar:,h's Lectures, Pt. v. Lect. XXIV. ; Lardner, VoL II. ch. XVII. 9 Lardner, Vol. II. ch. xx. 10 Euseb. H. E. VI. 14.. 170 THE SUFFICIEXCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [A.RT. ' I. and third of St. John. The Apocalypse he expressly ascribes to St. John. 1 Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, of the same date with Cle111ent, quotes all the books of the N e\v Testament, except perhaps St. James' Epistle, the second of St. Peter, and the third of St. John. The Epistle to the He brews he assigns to Barnabas. 2 Dr. Lardner has observed, that c There are perhaps more and larger quotations of the R e\v Testament in this OTle Christian author than of all the works of Cicero, though of so uncomn1on excellence for thought and style, in the \vriters of all characters for several ages.' 3 'Ve are no\y arrived at Origen, ,vho, as we have seen, gives a con1p1ete catalogue of the New rrestament, as \ve have it now. 4 Dionysius of Alexandria, .A.D. 247, quotes the Gospels, Acts, St. Paul's Epistles, (especially ascribing the Hebre'ws to St. Paul,) and the three Epistles of St. John. On the Apocalypse he has a long dissertation, fronl \vhich it appears that it ,vas ycry generally received b y Christians as ,vritten by St. John, though he himself inclines to attribute it to another John, \vhom he considered a holy and divinely inspired lllan. 5 Cyprian, A.D. 250, quotes all the N e\v Testament except the :Epistles to Philemon and the Hebrews, the third of St. John the second of'St. Peter, and St. James. The .iipocalypse he often quotes as St. J obn's.6 l\Iethodius, Bishop of Olyn1pus in Lycia, eirc. A.D. 260, con- stantly quotes or refers to the Gospels and Acts, most of St. Paul's Epistles, especialIy the Hebrews, also I Peter, I John, and the Apocalypse.' Eusebius has already been adduced as a witness, having given a catalogue of the Ne\v Testanlent Scriptures, as "We have them now. It is unnecessar '" to continue the list further. 'Ve have already seen, that from this time \ve maj finel in the works of the fathers full catalogues of the books of the N e\v Testament; and the ullnlber of quotations fron1 then1 in their writings gro\vs funer and 11101'e abundant. 'Ve nlu5t add that heretics quoted and admitted the san1e Scriptures, with the exception of those outrageous heretics, such as the Gnostics and the Ianichees, who "Were rather heathen 1 Lardner, VoL II. ('h. XXII.; Ep. Kaye's Clement of Alex. ch. YIII. 2 De Pudicitia, c. xx. 3 Lardner, V 01. H. ch. XXVIII. See also Bp. Kaye' l'crlullian, ch. v. p. 307- 4 Lardner, Vol. II. ch. XXXVIII. :> Ibid. Vol. III. ch. XLIII. 6 Ibid. Vol. III. ch. XLIV. 7 Ibid. V 01. III. ch. LVII. SEC. I1.J FOR SALYATIOX. 171 philosophers, ,yith a tinge of Christianity, than Christians with a defilement of philosophy. Thus the IoDtanists, the Donatists, l Arins,2 l)hotinus,3 Lucifer,4 and other schislllatics and heretics of the first four centuries, received the same sacred books ,yith the Catholic Christians. K ot only heretics, moreover: but heathens and persecutors, kne\v the sacred books and soucrht to destro\ tLe n. Thus in the a ., persecution of Dioc1etian there was an edict, A.D. 303, that the Christian Churches should be destroyed, and their Scriptures burned. .Accordingly, great search was n1ac1e for the books of the e\v Testament, and those Christians who, to save themselves, gave np their books to the persecutors, acquired the opprobrious nalne of Traditores. 5 " hen Constantine the Great em braced Christianity, finding that the persecution under Diocletian had diminished the number of copies of the K e', Testan1ent, he antl10rized Ensebius, Bishop of ræsarea, to get fifty copies of the ew rrest::llnent "Titten out for hinl, desiring that they should be skilfnlly and carefully written on fine parchment. 6 'Ve have seen then that numerous ::\188., the most ancient versions, the catalogues given us by the fathers, quotations and references fro111 the time of the earliest Apostolical father, gradu- al1y increasing in nunlber, yet numerous from the beginning, the consent of heretics, the enn1Ïty of persecutors-all \vitness to the existence, from the earliest tinles, of the New Testament Scriptures: and all this testimony is uniform in favour of the very books which ,ve no" possess. It may be added, that, although it is quite clear that there were certain early writers, such as Clement, Barnabas, and lIerIllas, highly esteemed and whose writings were read in some Churches, and though there ".e1'e some Apocryphal books pro- fessing to be the \vords of the Apostles ::tnc1 Evangelists; :yet there is good reason to assert, that these books are not quoted by the fathers as authority, and were not received by the Church as Canonical Scripture. 7 To the external evidence, the internal proofs of genuineness n1Ìght be added, if time and space would aHo". Books which are forgeries generally show, when carefully scrutinized, plain 1 Lardner, Vol. III. eh. LxnI. Ihid. eh. LXIX. :J Ibid. ch. LXXXIX. 4 IhieL ch. XCI. 5 Ibid. eh. Lxn. 6 Enseb. Lib. IV. e. 36; Lardner, eh. LXX. i See Jones, On the Canon, Part II. eh. J. Observe III. ; Lardner, eh. x. XIV. XVII XXII. XXXVIII. LVII. &e. 172 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. proofs, that they are not his, whose name they bear. rrhe lan- guage, the ideas, the statements of facts, some little circumstance of date or place, some circumstance connected ,vith the character, knowledge, or condition of the author, are found inconsistent and incapable of being explained. Or, if this be not the case, there is a markedly studied effort to avoid all this, and to make the forgery appear a genuine work. But the different books of the New Testament, though written by eight different hands, under vastly different conditions, have yet defied the efforts of critics to dis- prove their genuineness. They only come out the brighter from every fiery trial. Their style and language fire j nst wbat ,ve shonld expect frOIn the ,vriters, to "vhom they are ascriLecl. They abound in minute particulars, most naturally and simply introduced, which correspond accurately \vith the state of things existing, at the time and in the place in which the authors wrote. Coincidences have been pointed out, 'which the cleverest forger could never have designed, and which only patient searching could have detected: \vhereas, if such coincidences had been designed, they would have been put prominently forward to meet the view. 1 In this, and in similar manners, ,ve may confirm, by internal examination, the results deduced from external testimony. But before ,ve conclude this sketch, we must observe that, in the accounts of the catalogues and quotations given by the different early fathers, ,ve could not but remark, that SOIne books ,vere less universally quoted, and classed in the catalogues, than others. We learn, as early as Origen, and Illore clearly afterwards froIn Ensebius, that, though the Church generallj received the Canon of the X e,v Testament as we receive it now, yet SOlne fe\v books ,vere by some persons considered as doubtful. Eusebins n1akes three distinct classes of books,2 viz. : óp.oÀOryoúPÆlIOl, those universally received; àllTlÀEryÓP.ElIOl, those generally received, but doubted of by some; lIÓÐOl, i.e., Apocryphal books rejected by an but heretiçs. In like manner, Cyril of Jerusalem distinguishes between those 7rapà 7rÛ.()lV óP.O^O"joúp.Eva, owned by all, and (lp.cþlßaÀÀóp.ElIa, doubted by sOIne. 3 Now the undoubted books, according to Eusebius, which aU received, were the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, one of St. Peter, one of St. John. He adds, that Christians 1 See Paley's Horæ Paulinæ, passim; Iarsh's Lect. Part v. Lect. XXy!. 2 H. E. III. 3, 25. 3 Cyril. Oateches. IV. 36. SEC. I1.J FOR SALVATIO . 173 generally received the Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude Revelation. These he esteemed canonical, but tells us tbat , some don bted concerning their genuineness. He also mentions the Epistles of Clelnent and Barnabas, and the Pastor of Herrnas, as esteE'lned useful by many, but not to be considered a part of Canonical Scripture. 1 No\v the principal reasons for doubting the genuineness and canonicity of the books, which Eusebius speaks of as ÙJJTlÀeyópÆJJU, were of this nature. The Hebrews has not St. Paul's name, and is thought to be different in style from his other writings. 2 St. James might not have been an Apostle, and therefore bis Epistle 11light have no clainl to be in the Canon. The Apocalypse introduces the name of St. John, contrarj to that Apostle's custOlll elsewhere; and some supposed it ,vas written by John the elder, a person whom Papias nlentions, and not by St. John the Apostle. 3 To take first the Epistle of St. J aUles; there is strong reason to believe that, whether the writer was James the son of Zebedee, or James the Lord's brother, he ,vas in any case an ....L\.postle; for James the Lord's brother is in Scripture called an Apostle,4 and ,vas in all probability the same as James the son of Alphæus, or Cleopas, (the two nanles being very probably identical,) his nlother being fary the sister of the Virgin l\fary. 5 So that there is no reason to exclude his Epistle fronl the Canon, because he was not an Apostle. But further, his Epistle is in the Syriac version, and the authority of the Syrian Church is very in1portant on this head; for the Church of Syria bordered on Palestine, where St. James, the Lord's brother, was bishop, and spoke the same lan- guage as the natives of Palestine itself. "r e must rernern ber, too, that Eusebius tells us that this Epistle was received by the great majority of Christians; and that it is by no means ,yonderflll, that an Epistle, \vritten by the Bishop of Jerusalem to the Jews, should not have becon1e known to the Grecian Churches so soon as others; and hence more doubt ll1ight arise about it than about other Epistles. 6 Of the Epistle to tbe Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, we learn t hat the former was not fully admitted by the Latin, nor the latter by tb e Greek Church among Canonical Scriptures. 7 Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we may observe, that the 1 Euseb. 11. E. as above; Lardner, LXXII. :! Hieronym. De V. 1. in Paul. 3 Euseb. H. E. III. 39. 4 Gal. i. 9. 5 See Lardner, VoL VI. ch. XVI. 6 See 1ar;:;h's Leet. Pt. v. Leet. XXV. 7 Hieronym. Dardall. Epist. CXXIX. De "V. 1. s. v. Paul. 1602. 174: THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. absence of the Apostle's nanle 11lay be fully accounted for by the fact, that be ,vas the Apostle of the Gentiles, not of the circum- cision; and therefore, ,vhen he ,vrites to the Jews, he does not put his name and claim his Apostleship, as not wishing to put for- ward the sanle clailll to authority over tbe J e\vs which he asserts over the Gentile Churches.! But the Epistle is probably referred to by Clenlent of Rome,2 and perhaps by Polycarp.3 'Ve have in jts favour the testimony of Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysil1s of J erusalenl, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome. 4 It is in the Syriac Canon. And, as regards the supposed difference of sty Ie from the general ,vritings of St. Paul, the opinion of Clell1ent of Alexandria, that St. Paul wrote the Epistle in Hebrew or Syriac, and that it ,vas translated by St. Luke into Greek, would explain all the difficulty. 5 Yet Thfr. Forster appears to have proved, by most careful and accurate con1parison, that the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews, notwithstanding the apparent dissimilarity, has all the peculiarity of the ,vritings of St. Paul, a peculiarity so great that the genuine- ness of the Epistle can hardly be questioned. 6 The Apocalypse, which is the only other book of any consi- derable length which is doubted, is ascribed by Papias to John, probably the Apostle. It is the only book which Justin lartyr l11entions by nanle, and he expressly assigns it to St. John. Irenæus constantly quotes it and refers it to St. John. Tertullian and Theophilus of ....\.ntioch quote it. Clement of Alexandria assigns it to St. John. So do Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasins, Epiphanius, Jerome, the Council of Carthage. 7 All these are ,vitnesses of great inlportance, and a large nurnber of them living within a century of the date 'v hen the book in question ,vas composed. Especially Papias, Justin 1Iartyr, and Irenæus, the very earliest fathers after those called Apostolical, speak much concerning it, and quote frequently from it. felito, a contemporary of Justin 1artyr and Irenæus, is also, according to Eusebius, a witness to the Apocalypse of St. John. S 1 Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. 11. B. VI. 14; Hieron. in GaZat. cap. I. 2 Eusebius observes that Clement uses the very language of the Epistle.-ll. E. III. 38. It may ue added, that the writer of St. Clement's Epistle seems to have been thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the Epi tle to the Hebrews. 3 Lardner, ch. VI. oj See the lists above gi '"en. 5 Ap. Euseb. II. B. VI. 14. 6 }1'or5ter, On the .Apostolical.A.utho'l'ity of the Epistle to the Heb'l'ews. 7 See the lists and authorities referred to above. 8 Kal À. 6 'Y o r; aÚToû (l\IÛ\íTwJ.1or;) 1rEpl 1rpoif>7]uíar;, Kal Ó 1rEpt if>LÀOJ.1f iar;. Kat 1] KÀEír;' Kat Tà 7rEpt TOÛ Otaß6Àou Kat T1}r; 'A7rOKaÀÚÝ;Ewr; 'Iwáppov.-Euseb. lI. E. i v. 26. SEC. IILJ FOR SALVATION. 175 vVe 11lay now close our brief view of the evidence concerning the Canon of the New Testament: and whilst \ve rejoice tbat Councils in the fourth century, weighing the evidence, decided on the Canon, and settled it as we have it now; we cannot admit that tbe present Church receives the Scriptures, whether of the Old Testament or the New, n1erely on the authority of the Church of the fourth century; inasmuch as the Church of the fourth century itself received them on the testimony of earlier ages, and the present Ch urch receives it on the saBle. rrhat testimony, even if Councils had been silent, \vouid be of itself alnply sufficient to prove that the New Testament Scriptures, which we now possess, are tbe genuine ,yorks of the Apostles and Evangelists. SECTION III.-O THE REAL V... LUE OF TRADIrrIOX, AND THE IlEADING OF THE APOCRYPH.A.. I. T HE Church of England then bolds, in conformity with the Church of old, that Scripture is absolutely perfect in relation to the end to which it tends-viz., the teaching us all things necessary to salvation. She denies the existence and rejects the authority of any parallel and equal tradition, of any doctrines necessary to salvation, handed down fron1 generation to generation. But it is not true, that the Church of England rejects the proper use of tradition, though she will not suffer it to be unduly exalted. She does not neglect the testimony of antiquity, and cut herself off frolll the Communion of the Saints of old. It has been already remarked, that besides the tradition which the Church of ROine holds necessary to be received, which is a tradition equal and parallel with the Scriptures, there are also traditions which are subservient to Scripture, and calculated to throw .light upon it. Such traditiop, wben kept in its right place, the Church of England has ever used and respected. Now this tradition is of two kinds, Hermeneutical Tradition, and Ecclesiastical Tradition. The former tends to explain and interpret the Scriptures; the latter relates to discipline and cere- nloniaL With regard to the latter, we find that the New Testa- ment has nowhere given express rules for rites, ordinances, and discipline; although we evidently discover, that rites, ordinances, and discipline did exist, even when the New Testament was written. 176 THE SUFFICIENCY Ol? HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. }1-'or our guidance therefore in these matters, which are useful for edification, but not essential for salvation, \ve gladly follow the example of the Churches nearest to the Apostles' tin1es, which we conceive to have been ordered by the Apostles themselves, and to be the best witnesses of Apostolic order and Apostolic usages. Scripture is, at least, not full on these matters; yet they are essential for the regulating and governing of a Church. We appeal therefore to the purest and earliest models of antiquity. We cannot err in doing this, for in asserting the sufficiency of Scripture, we assert it for the end to which it was designed. As \ve do not assert it as fit to teach us arts and sciences; so neither do 'we assert it as designed entirely to regulate Church discipline and ceremony. And where it does not profess to be a perfect guide, we derogate not from its authority in seeking other help. On matters of faith it is complete and full; but not in all things besides. With regard to Hernleneutical Tradition, we vie,,'" matters thus. 'fhose early Christians, who had the personal instruction of the Apostles and their Ì1nn1ediate companions, are more likely to have known the truth of Ohristian doctrine, than those of after ages, when heresies had become prevalent, when lnen had learned to wrest Scripture to destruction, and sects and parties had \varped and biassed men's minds, so that they could not see clearly the true sense of Holy 'Vrit. Truth is one, but error is multiform: and we know that, in process of time, new doctrines constantly sprang up in the Church, and by degrees gained footing and took root. We believe, therefore, that if Wp- can learn what was the constant teaching of the prin1Ìtive Christians, ,ve shall be Illost likely to find the true sense of Scripture preserved in that teaching: and wher- ever ,ve can trace the first rise of a doctrine, and so stamp it with novelty, the proof of its novelty will be the proof of its falsehood; for \vhat could find no place among the earliest Churches of Christ can scarcely have con1e from the Apostles of Christ, or from a right interpretation of the Scriptures which they wrote. We do not, in thus judging, appeal to the authority of any individual father, not even if he be one of those who had seen the Apostles, ana had received the Iniraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. We know that they were fallible men, though we believe them to have been pious and wise 111en. But we look to their writings for evidence as to what were the doctrines prevalent in the Church during the earliest ages; and we believe that, if we can discover w hat the doctrines of those earliest ages \vere, we have a most irn- SEC. Ill.J :FOR 8ALYATION. 177 portant clue to guide us in our course through the Scriptures themselves: because we judge that the Church thus early must almost certainly have, in the main, preserved the integrity of the faith, and could not, whilst the voice of Apostolic Ulen ,vas in their ears have fallen away into error and heresy. We know that, in , 0/ 01 those days, lnen had rnany advantages over ourselves for the inter- preting of the New Testament. A knowledge of the language, the customs, the history of events, which iHustrate the Scriptures, was of itself Illost inlportant. Some of them nlust have had in their Inemories the personal teaching of the Apostles, for they were their immediate hearers and followers. ß-lany of them Jived within a comparatively short. tirne from their departure. They took the utmost pains to preserve the purity of the Apostolic faith in the Church. The Church of their days had still the cha1.ismata, or miraculous gifts of the Spirit, visibly poured out upon it: and 'we may say that in every, or almost every manner, it ,vas qualified, beyond any subsequent Church or age, to understand tbe Scrip- tures, and to exhibit the purity and integrity of the Christian faith. The least then that can be said is, that the doctrine of the ancient Church is an useful check on any ne,v interpretation of cripture. Antiquity is a n1ark of truth, and novelty a mark of error, in religion; and this rule has ever been found valuable in important controversies. The Socinians have striven to show that Justin l\Iartyr invented the doctrine of the Trinity, deriving it from the writings of Plato. Catholic Christians, on the contrary, have proved that from the earliest tin1es that doctrine ,"vas held in the Church, that therefore it is traceable to the Apostles, and not to Plato, that it springs from a true, not from an erroneous inter- , pretation of Scripture. A like form has the controversy with the Church of Rome assun1ed. lan.y of her peculiar doctrines have heen proved to owe their origin to cOIllparatively recent times; and so they have been shown to be unfit to stand the well-known test I of Tertullian, that' what is first is true, what is later is adulterate.' 1 rrhus then tradition may be useful in the interpretation of Scripture, though not as adding to its authority. 'Ve ,veIl know t hat Scripture is perfect in itself, for the end for which it was designed. But we know also tLat no aid for its interpretation should be neglected. rfhat the Church of England takes this view of the right use 1 Hæc enim ratio valet adversusonmes I mum, id esse adulterum, quodcullque pos- hæl'eses, id e se vcrum, quodcunque pri- terius.-Tertull. ad '. P1.ax. 2. :N 178 THE SUFFICIEKCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [AnT. 'TL of tradition, and of t,he value of the testin10ny of t,he prin1Ìtive Church, \vill appear fron1 the following documents. The Convocation of 157 I, ,vhich passed the XXXIX. Articles in the form in which we I aye them now, passed also a code of Canons, in one of which is the following clause: 'In the first place let preachers take heed that they deliver nothing from the pnlpit, to be religiously held and believed by the people, but that \vhich is agreeable to the Old and New Testanlent, and such as the Catholic fathc1.s and (l.ncient bishops har,;e collected theref1'Oln.' 1 In like manner, in the Preface to the Ordination Service we read: 'It is evident to all men reading Holy Scripture, and ancient autho1'S, that from the Apostles' tillles there have been three orders of Iinisters in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.' So Archbishop Cranlner, the great reformer of our Liturgy and conlpiler of our Articles, \vrites: 'I also grant that every exposition of the Scripture, whereinsoever the old, holy, and true Church did agree, is necessarily to be believed. But our contro- versy here' (that is, with the Romanists) 'is, \vhether any thing ought to be believed of necessity without the Scripture.' 2 So his great coadjutor, Bishop RicHey: 'In that the Church of Christ is in doubt, I use herein the ,vise counsel of Vil1centius Lirinensis, w honI I am sure you will allow; who, giving precepts, bow the Catholic Church lllay be in all schisms and heresies known, \vriteth in this nlanner: '"\Vhen,' saith he, 'one part is corrupted with heresies, then prefer the \vhole world before that one part; but if the greatest part be affected, then prefer antiquity." 3 Dr. Guest, who was appointed at the accession of Elizabeth to restore the reformed Prayer-Book, after it had been disused in the reign of :llIary, and \vho reduced it to nearly its present form, \vrites thus: 'So that I may here ,veIl say \vith Tertullian, That is trut.h which is first: that. is false wvich is after. That is truly first, which is from the beginning. That is from the beginning which is from the Apostles. Tertullian, Cont. P1YL1:. Dont. J1Ia1"c.,4 Bishop Jewel, in his Apology, \vhich is all but an authoritative document, says: ' We are come as near as \ve possibly could to the 1 Imprimis vel'O videbullt, ne quid unquam doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinæ Veteris aut Novi Testamenti, quodque ex ilJa ipsa doctrina. Catholici patres, et veteres ppiscopi collegerint. -Card well's Syno. dalia, V 01. I. p. 126. 2 Cranmer, On Unwritten Ve?"ities; Jenkyns' O,.anme?"'s Remains, Vol. IV. p. 229. See also p. 126, and Vol. III. p. 22. 3 Gloster Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 61 3. 4 Guest to Sir \V. Cecil, concerning the Service Book, &c.; Strype's lnnals, V 01. I. Appendix o. XIV.; also Card- well's Hist. of Confc'rences, p. 52. SEC. IILJ FOR SALVATION. 179 Church of the .Apostles, and of the old Catholic bishops and fathers: and have directed according to their customs and ordinances, not only onr doctrine, but also the sacraments, and the form of comn10n-prayer.' 1 These passages sufficiently prove that our reformers admitted, and made use of the appeal to antiquity, in the interpretation of Scripture, and in the establishing of order and discipline. Their ,visdom has been followed therein by all the great divines who have succeeded them. Joseph 1-fede, Hooker, Andrewes, Halnmond 7 Overal, U ssher, J ereIllY Taylor, Bull, Beveridge, Patrick, Waterland, J ebb, 'Tan Iildert, ICaye, G. S. Faber, have been respectively cited as upholding the same principle, and acting upon it. 2 In the words of Bishop Kaye: 'On the subject of religion, there appears to be a peculiar propriety in appealing to the opinions of past ages. In hUlllan science we find a regular advance from less to g reater dearees of knowledo'e. Truth is elicited bv the labours o 0 of successive enquirers; each adds something to the stock of facts, which have been previouslf accu1l1ulated; and as new discoveries are continuall)7" 111ac1e, the crude notions of those ,vho first engaged in the pursuit are discarded for more nlatured and more enlarged views. The most recent opinions are those which are lllOst likely to be correct. But in the case of a Divine revelation, this tentative process can have no place. They to whom is C0111nlitted the trust of communicating it to others, are thoroughly instructed in its nature and its objects, and possess a knowledge which no enquiries of subsequent ages can improve. "\Vhat they deliver is the truth itself; which cannot be rendered more pure, though it lllay, and probably will, be adulterated in its transmission to succeeding generations. The greater the distance frolll the fountain-head, the grea.ter the chance that the stream will be polluted. On these considerations is founded the persuasion, which has generally prevailed, that in order to ascerLain \v hat was the rloctrine taught by the Apostles, and ",'hat is the true interpretation of their 1 Apolog. Enchiridion Theolog. p. 184; where see the original more at length. 2 The student may especially be re- ferred to Bp. Beveridge, Preface to his Codex CanOn'l.l'1Jt; Patrick's DisC'Ourse about Tradition, in the first Volume of G-ibson's Prcservath'e against Popery.: Dr. \Vaterland, On the Importance of the Doctrine of the T'1'inity, ch. VII.; Bp. Jebb's Pastoral Instructions-Chapter, On the Peczúiar Cha-racter of the Church of England; Bp. Kaye's Tertllllian, p. 229. See also Rev. G. S. }'aber's Primi- tive Doctrine of Justification; anù also Primitire Doctrine of Election. On Ec- clesia!';tical Tradition. or tradition con- cerning rites and dis ipline, see Hooker, E. P. Bks. II. and III.; Bp. larsh's Comparati 'e Vieu', ch. VII. x2 180 THE SU:FFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIJ>TURES [AnT. VI. writings, we ought to have recourse to the authority of those who 1 ived nearest to their times.' 1 , We allow,' says Bishop Patrick, 'that tradition gives us a considerable assistance in such points as are not in so many letters and syllables contained in the Scriptures, but may be gathered from thence by good and manifest reasoning. Or, in pl<;iner ,vords, perhaps, whatsoever tradition justifies any doctrine that nlay be proved by the Scriptures, though not found in express ternlS there, we ackno,vledge to be of great use, and readily receive and follo,v it, as serving very lnuch to establish us more firmly in that truth, when we see all Christians have adhered to it. This rnay be called a l'onfirrniny tTadition: of which we have an in- stance in Infant Baptism, ,vhich some ancient fathers call an Apos- tolical tradition.' l\..gain: ' We look on this tradition as nothing else but the Scriptu1 e unfolded: not a new thing, but the Scrip- ture eXplained and n1ade more evident. And thus some part of the Nicene Creed may be called a tradition; as it hath expressly delivered unto us the sense of the Church of God, concerning that great article of our faith, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, begotten of His Þàther before all worlds, and of the same substance with tlte J/athe'i.. But this tradition supposes the Scripture for its ground, and deli vel'S nothing but what the fathers, assenl bled at Nice, believed to be contained there and fetched from thence. 2 So Dr. 'Vaterland: ' We allow no doctrine as necessary, which stands only on fathers, or on tradition, oral or ,vritten. We admit none for such, but ,vhat is contained in Scripture, and proved by Scripture, rightly interpreted. And ,ve know of no ,vay more safe in necessaries, to preserve tbe right interpretation, than to take the ancients along ,vith us. We think it a good method to secure our rule of faith against impostures of all kinds, \vhether of enthu- siasm, or false criticism, or conceited reason, or oral tradition, or the assu111ing dict3.tes of an infallible chair. If ,ve thus preserve the true sense of Scripture, and upon that sense build our faith, ,ve then build upon Scripture only: for the sense of Scripture is Scripture.' 3 - 1 Ep. Kaye's Juxtin Martyr, ch. 1. p. 2. The Bi:shop has sati:sfa.ctorily shown that the tradition appealed to by Tertullian in the second century was no other than the kind of tradition admitted by the English Church. See Bp. Kaye's Tatullian, p. 297, note. 2 Patrick, On Tradition, as above. 3 'Vaterland, On tlte Importance of the Doctrine of tlte T'J'inity, eh. VII. The note to this passage is as follows: 'So the great Casaubon, speaking, both of himself and for the Church of England, and, at the ame time, for :ß;Ielanchthon and Cal vin also: Opto cum felanchthone et Ecclesia Anglicana, per canalem anti- quitatis deduci ad nos dogmata fidei, e fonte sacne Scripturæ deri vata.-Alioquin SEC. III. ] :FOR SALV ATIOK. 181 It is indeed ll10st lleces::;ary that we do not suffer our respect for antiquity to trench upon our suprerne regard for the authority of Scripture. To Scripture we look, as the only source of all Divine knowledge. But when we have fully established this prin- ciple, we need not fear to make use of every light with which God has furnished us, for the right understanding of Scripture; whether it be a critical knowledge of ancient languages, or history, or antiquities, or the belief of the primitive Christians and the doctrines which holy men of old deduced from those sacred writings, which were to them, as to us, the only fountain of light and truth. II. The ....\.rticle, having declared the sufficiency of Scripture, and set forth the Canon of Scripture, then speaks of those other books, which had been always held in high respect, but were not canonical, in the following terms: , The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of n1anners; but yet Joth not apply them to establish any doctrine.' 1 The meaning of these words is, that the Ohurch of God, in all ages, has been used to read the Apocrypha, for example and in- struction, but not for doctrine. This is a sinlple statement of fact, and if nothing nlore were said elsewhere, it would need no further explanation. But, if 1'e look to the original Calendar of the Prayer- Book, which ,vas drawn up by the cOlllpilers of the ....\..rticles, the principle of which is still retained in the Lectionary of 187 I; we find that, during a certain portion of the year, in the week-day services, the first lesson is appointed to be read from the A pocr} pba. This is acting on the principle laid down in the Article, and this is one of those customs of the Church of England \v hich has been Inost quis futurus est innovandi finis ?-Et si omnis mea voluptas est et sola versari in It'ctione sacræ Scripturæ, nullam tamen inde me hausisse propriam sententiam, nullam habere, neque unquam (TOV SELF Ei-rrEÎv, esse habiturum. :J\Iagl1i Calvini hæc olim fuit mens, cum scriberet præfa- tionem suam in conunentarium Epistolæ ad Romanos; non debere nos iv Toî KUpLWTáTOL , a consensu Ecclesiæ rece- dere,' A.D. 161 I. Casaub. Epist. 744. ])CW. Heillsio, p. 434. Edit. tertia. Rot- terdami. 1 , A-rr6KPUtþCL ßíß^LCL or å-rr6 KpUcþ OL ßlßÀOL, so called either because their au- thors were unknown ; or because not laid up, like the Canonical books, in the ark; or because read in private only, not in public also; though it appears from the XL Vllth Canon of the Council of Car- thage, that some apocryphal books were read publicl.v. Suicer, s. v. å7r6KpVtþOL. Tom. I. 458. The passage of Hierome alluded to iR probably: 'Sicut ergo Judith et Tobit et l\Iaccabæorum libros legit quidem Ec- clesia, sed inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit, sic et hæc duo voh.ur1Ìna (h. e. libros Sapientiæ et Ecclesia5tici) legat ad ædificationem plebis, non ad anctoritatf>m Ecclesia!"ticorum dogmatum confirman- dam.'-Hieronyrn. in Libros Salomonis, Chromatio et lleliodoro, Tom. I. p. 938. Ed. Ben. 182 THE SUFFICIEXCY OF HOLY SCRIPTCUES [..:-1RT. .VI. exposed to censure from those who dissent from her, and frolTI some even of her o\vn children. There may certainly appear some danger in ordering that to be read, as a lesson of the Ohurch, ,vhich is not Canonical Scripture, lest it should be n1Ïstaken for Scripture; and it is 1110reover urged against the custom, that the ..,-'\.pocrypha, not only is not inspired, but also contains son1e idle legends, and some erroneous doc- trines, and therefore ought not to be admitted to be read in the Church. It is even added, that the Church of ROIne has derived son1e of her errors from, and supports SOllIe of her false teaching by, the authority of the Apocrypha. It may be ,veIl, therefore, to state the grounds on \vhich, it is probable, our reforrners thought fit to retain the Apocryphal lessons, that we may see what. is the weight of the objections urged against our Church on the ground of their use. First, it has been replied to the principal objections, that if we would exclude all hUlnan cOlnpositions froll1 the Church, we must exclude bomi1ies, sermons, n1etrical psalnls and hymns,-nay, prayers, whether ,vritten or extenlpore, except such a8 are taken out of Scripture itself,-that there is no danger that the Apo- crypha should be mistaken for Scripture ,vhen it is expressly assigned a far lower place, both in the formularies and in the ordinary teaching of the Ohurch,-that, if it be not free froln faults, no more is any human composition, and that 0n this prin- ciple we must still rather exclude sern1ons, psalnls, hynlns, and even litnrgies,-that it is not true that the Church of Rome has derived her errors from the Apocrypha, which does not support them, and by,vhich she could not prove them; for she has derived them from misinterpreting Scripture, from oral tradition, and from her own assunled infallibility.l So much is said in answer to the objections. Further, in 1 The following is the answer of the Bishops to the exception of the Puritans at the Savoy Conference against the reaù- ing of the Apocrypha: 'As they would have no Saints' days observed by the Church, so no Apocr'yphal chapter read in the Church; but upon such a reason as would exclude all sermons as well as Apocrypha-viz., because the Holy Scrip tures contain in them all things necef;sary either in doctrine to be believed, or in duty to be practised. If so, why so many un- necessary sermons' \Vhy any more but reading of Scriptures f If, notwithstand- ing their sufficiency, sermons be necessary, there is no reason why the Apocryphal chapters should not be as useful,-ulO.st of them containing excellent discourses aud rules of morality. It is hpartily to be wished that all sermons were as good. If their fear be that, by this means, those books may come to be of equal esteem with the Canon, they may be secured ag'ainst that by the title which the Church hath put upon them. calling them Apocry- phal: and it is the Church's testimony which teacheth us this difference, and to leave them out were to cross the practice of the Church in former 3ges. '-Card wen, Hisl. of Conferences, ch. VII. p. 3-12. SEC. II1.J FOR SALVATIQ.:'\. 183 favour of the reading the Apocryphal books, their nature and history are alleged. The origin of them has been already alluded to. They were written in the period of time "\v hich elapsed between the return from captivity and the birth of Christ. The historical books of the Apocrypha, therefore, supply a most impor- tant link in the history of the Jewish people. 'Vithout them ,ve should be ignorant of the fulfilment of many of the Old Testalnel1t prophecies, especially those in the book of. Daniel; and should know nothin cr of several customs and circumstances alluded to in o the New Testament, and essential to its understanding. The otber books are mostly pious reflections, written by devout men? who ,vere waiting for the consolation of IsraeL The Alexandrian Jews received them ,,"ith the most profound respect. The fathers often appealed to them, and cited thenl; though it has been shown they mostly knew the difference between them and the ,vritings of Ioses and the Prophets. It appears that fron1 very early tin1es they werE' read in most Churches, at least in the \Vest; as in very many were also read the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas I-not that they were esteemed Canonical, but as of high antiquity and value, and useful for instruction to the people. . In Ruffinus we find a distinction between books ..:\.pocryphal and books Ecclesiastical. 2 .Among the former he classed those \v hich 'vere wholly rejected; among the latter those which were read in Churches. His division therefore is threefold: Canonical, which embraces all those which we now receive into the Canon; Apocry- phal-i.e., those which were altogether rejected; and Ecclesiastical, among which he reckons \Visdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, J uditb, 1faccabees, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the like. This distinc- tion occurs elsewhere, though some of the fathers 111ake only a 1 Dionysius, a bishop of Corinth, in the second century, in a letter to the Church of Rome (ap. Euseb. ll. E. III. 16) say:,:, · they read on the Lord's da ' Clement's Epistle to them in their assemblies;' and Eusebius (Id. IV. 23) declares it to have been 'universally received, and read in most churches,' both in his and former times. The same he says of the Shepherd of Rermas (Id. III. 3), that' it was read in many churches;' which is confirmed by Athanasius (Epist. Paschal. XXXIX.), and Ruffinus (Exposit. in Symb. Apost. 36), both concerning this and other books.- Jones, On the Canon, Part I. ch. x. 2 'Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt qui non Canonici, sed Eccle8i- astici a majoribus appellati sunt; ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia quæ dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Eccle- siast cus appellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli sed Scripturæ qualitas cog- nominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobiæ et Judith et :\Iaccabæorum libri. In novo vero Testamento libellus, qui dicitur Pastoris sive Hermatis, qui appel- latur duæ viæ, vel judicium Petri; quæ omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Ceteras vero Scrip- turas Apocryphas nominarunt, quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt.' - Ruffin. in Symb. A post. S 38. 184 THE SUFFICIEKCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [ART. VI. twofold division, into Canonical and Apocryphal. 1 N O\V the Ecclesiastical books are what we at this tÎ1ne call the Apocrypha; and, forming part both of the Latin and Greek versions of the Old Testament, they continued to be read in most Churches, froru the earliest ages to the time of the l{eformation. It ,vas not peculiar to the English refornlers to speak with respect of these books. The foreign refornlers uSP similar lan- guage, citing them as a kind of secondary authority: and especially the Swiss and Belgic Confessions, which represent the opinions of the extreme Calvinist section of the Reformation, speak in terms of honour concerning them, the latter allowing them to be read in Churches. 2 It Inay be added, that thp -Eastern Ch urches, which agree with us in the Canon, yet retain the Apocryphal books in their Bibles, and use them as \ve do. One more argument ought not to be \"holly omitted. The New Testanlent writers, even our Lord HiInself, appear often to cite from the Septuagint. \Ve nlust not consider this as giving full authority to all the books of the Septuagint. Such authority ,ve have already shown to belong only to the books of the Hebrew Canon. But it should appear that such citations from the Septuagint would naturally commend to the Church the use of that volume as the Greek version of the Scriptures. Now that Greek version contains all the Apocryphal books. If, then, they were so mischievous, or so to be rejected, as some argue; it is scarcely to be accounted for that neither our Lord nor any of His _Apostles give any warning against thenl, w,.hilst they quote, as of sacred authority, other portions of the volume which con- tains them. These views, in the general, appear to have influenced our reformers to retain the Apocryphal books. They have removed them from the Sunday services, and forbidden them to be quoted as authority in matters of faith; but esteeming thenl as next in value to the sacred Scriptures, from the ilnportant inforlnatioll they contain, and from the respect \vhich they have received fronl the earliest ages, they ,vere unwilling to remove then1 fron1 the place \vhich they had so long occupied. The reforulers "'''ere evi.. 1 E.g. Cyril. Cateches. IV. 35 ; where he calls all Apocryphal which are not Canonical. 2 Sylloge Confessíon'1lm. Confcss. Hel- vet. Art. I. p. 17. Confess. Belgic. Art. VI. p. 328. The latter runs thus: Diffe- rentiam porro constituimus inter libros istos sacros et eos qno Apocryphos vo- cant: utpote quod Apocryphi legi qui- dem in Ecclesia possint, et fas sit ex illig eatenus etiam sumere documenta, qua- tenus cum libris Canonicis consonant; at nequaquam ea est ipsorum auctoritas et firmitas, ut ex illorum testimonio aliquod dogma de fide et religione Christiana certo constitui possit, &c. SEC. IILJ FOR SALVATION. lS3 dentIy not insensible to the evil of putting anything else on the same footing as the Canonical writings. But this danger, they justly esteemed, ,vould be very small in the Reformed Church. And experience lIas shown that in this they were right in their judgment, for extreme respect for the Apocrypha has been a feeling in this country almost unknown. In this question, therefore, they appear to have adhered to the nlaxirn, which often guided them in matters of doubt, a maxÏIn quoted with so much approbation by the famous Apologist of the English Church, and which originated in the fathers of the Council of Nice, le,} åpxaia KpaTeIT(J)-let ancient customs pTevail. 1 1 'Cur id a nobis hodie audiri non potest, quod olim in Concilio Xiceno, a tot Episcopis et Catholicis Patribu , nullo refragante, pronunciatum est, fOY} åpxaîa KpaTfiTw.'-J uelli. .Apolog. Enchi1'idio/ J.'heolo!Jicu:m, p. 158. On the question of the reading of the Apocrypha in churches, see Hooker, E. P. v. 20. Concerning the ancient custom of reading Apocryphal books, see also Bing- ham, Bccl(s. Ald. Ek. XIV. ch. III. 14, 15. 16. The following are the \vords of a pious and judicious writer, closely attached to a school in the English Church not par- ticularly inclined to pay re pect to the Apocrypha: J\Ian is a creature of ex- tremes. The midùle path is generally the wise path; but there are few wise enough to find it. Becau:;e Papists have made too much of some thing , Protestants have made too little of them. . . . The Papist pnts the .Apocrypha into his Canon; the Protestant will scarcely regard it as an ancient record, &c.'-Cecil's Remains, p. 3 6 4. London, 1830. A R rr I 0 J E V I T. Of tlte Old 'l.'estalllent. De Vtteri !l.'estamento. rfHE Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testa- ment everlasting life is offered tomankilld by Christ, who is the only :Mediator be- tween God aud man, being both God and man. 'Vherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law gi ven from God by JVloses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any common wéalth ; yet notwithstand- ing 110 Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called moral. TESTAMEXTG:\I vetus novo contrarium non est, quandoquidem tam in veteri quam in novo, per Christum, qui unicus est Medi- ator Dei et hominum, Deus et homo, æterna vita humano generi est proposita. Quare male sentiunt, qui veteres tantmn in promissiones temporarias sperasse cou- fingunt. Quanquam Lex a Deo data per l\Iosen quoad ceremunias et ritus Chris- tianos non astringat, lleque Civilia ejus præcepta in aliqua republica necessario recipi debeant, nihilominus tamen ab obedientia mandatorum quæ l\toralia v()- cantur nullus quantumvis Christiallus est solutus. SECTION I.-HISTORY. r)1 HE Article, as it no\v stands, is compounded of two of the -L Articles of 155 2 -viz., the sixth and the nineteenth. The sixth ran thus: 'The Old Testament is not to be put a,vay, as though it were contrary to the New, but to be kept still: for both in the Old and N e\v Testalnents everlasting life is offered to l11ankind only by Christ, who is the only lediator between God and man. vVhere- fore they are not to be heard, ,vhich feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises.' rrhe nineteenth ,vas as follo\vs : 'The La,v, which 'vas given of 3-od by foses, although it bind not Christian men, as concerning the ceremonies and rites of the same, neither is it required that the civil precepts and orders of it should be received in any cOlnmonweal: yet no Inan (be he never so perfect a Christian) is exelnpt and loose fro1l1 the obedience of those commandments \vhich are called moral; ,vherefore they are not to be hearkened unto, who affirm that Holy Scripture is given only to the weak, and do boast themselves continually of the Spirit, of whom (they say) they have learned such things as they teach, although the sa.me be most evidently repugnant to the IIoIy Scripture.' I I I SEC. 1.J OF THE OLD TESTA IE T. 187 1. 'Ve may first consider, \vhat persons have denied the doc- trine contained in the original sixth Article, which forms the first part of our present Article; and tben, who have been opposed to the statements of the original nineteenth .l\.rticle; of which the substance is contained in the latter part of our present seventh Article. First, then, some early heretics held that the Old Testament was altogether contrary to the 1\ eWe The Gnostic sects, who believed in the malignity of matter, would not allow that the Creator of the world could be the Sllprenle God. l\farcioll especially appears to have distinctly taught that the Old Testan1ent was contrary to the New, the former being the work of the Den1Ìurge or Creator, the latter of the Supren1e and invisible God. He is said to ha,"e composed a work caUed lntithcscs, because in it he set, as it were, in opposit.ion to each other, passages from the Old and N e\v Testament, intending his readers to infer from the apparent disagreement between then), that the Law and the Gospel did not proceed froID the sanJe Author. Tertullian wrote a work against larciol1, ill the fourth book of \vhich he exposes the inconsistency of this attempt.!. Similar opinions prevailed more or less an10ng the 'T alentinians and other Gnostic ects: all of whom attributed the creation to inferior beings, and consequently rejected the Old Testament. The :Thlanichees in like manner, who believed in two principles eternally opposed to each other, as they had views sÌ1nilar to the Gnostics concerning tbe evil of I1Jatter, so they resembled then1 in their disrespect to the Old Testament Scriptures. 2 And in this they were verr probably followed by these medieval sects of here- tics, the Bulgarians, Cathari, and others, \vho appear to have been infected with fanichæan heresy. It is nlost probable, however, that the frall1erS of this Article, both in the earlier and in the latter part of it, had in vie\v some of the fanatical sects of the period of the Reforulation, especial1y the Antinomians, wbo denied the necessity of obedience to the Law of God, and the Anabaptists, who referred all things to an internal iUuulination; and Loth of whom were likely to have denied the value and authority of the Old TestanleJJt. 1 TertulI. adv. 1I1arcion, Lib. IV. Ep. Kaye's 'l'ertullian, p. 499, &c. 2 Deum, qui Legem per loygen dedit, et in Hebræis prophetis locutus est, non t.'f':se verum Deum, sed unum ex principi- Lu!oi tenebrarum.-Angust. De lileres. 4 6 , Tom. YIII. p. 16. See a] o Socrat. 11. E. c. XXII. ; :Epiphan. Ila'rcs. 6'5, c. XLIII. ; Lard- 11t:'I', Rist. of .illanichecs, Vol. III. ch. LXIII. 3 See Iosheim, Ecc. Rist. Cent. XI. Part II. ch. v. 2, 3; Cent. XII. Pa,rt II. I ch. v. 4. 188 OF THE OLD TESTA IEXT. [ A RT. VIr. The opinion, that the fathers looked only for transitory pro- mises, has been held, not only by heretics and fanatics, but more or less, by some, in the main, orthodox Christians. Bishop 'Var- burton, in his famous work, The Di'vine Legation of j}fo es, has endeavoured to prove that 1\loses studiously concealed frain the Hebrews all knowledge of a future state; and this forms one of the arguments by which he strives to prove the inspiration and Divine authority of the Books of 1\loses. Though he allo\vs that the later J e,vs, during and after the Captivity, had a graduaHy increasing know ledge of the inlmortality of the sonl; yet as regards the earlier times of the Jewish comn10uwealt.h, he appears to have denied any sllch knowledge, even to the patriarchs and prophets. l II. By looking at the wording of the original nineteenth Article, it will appear plainly that the latter part of our present Article is chiefly directed against fanatics, who affirln that' Holy Scripture is given only to the \veak, and do boast themselves con- tinually of the Spirit, of whom, they say, that they have learned such things as they teach.' This claim to inward illumination, and consequent neglect of the teaching of Scripture, has constantly characterized fanatical sects in all ages. Those against w"hom the words of the Article 'vere directed, are generally supposed to be the .Lt\ntinomians and the Anabaptists, who sprang up soon after the rise of the Re- formation in Germany. The Antinomians \vere the followers of Agricola, ,vho carried the doctrine of justification by faith to the length of rejecting the necessity of moral obedience altogether. 2 rrhe Anabaptists were a constant source of annoyance to the Lutheran reformers. As their name implies, they rejected Infant Baptism, and rebaptized adults. But \vith this they combined a variety of noxious and fanatic doctrines, ,vhich rendered thelll dangerous both to Church and State. Claiming a high degree of internal illumination, they appear to have sanctioned and com- mitted a number of excesses and crimes, under pretence of special direction and command of Goc1. 3 1 See Warburton, Dh'ine Legation, Book Y. 5, 6. 2 l\Iosheim, Cent. XVI. Sect. III. Part II. ch. I. 25. 3 See a history of them, J\-Iosheim, Cent. XVI. Sect. III. Part II. ch. III. 1\108- htim also, in the preceding chapter, gives an account of a sect of Libertines calling themselves Spiritual Brothers and Sisters, who sprang up among the Calvinists in FlanderR, and against whom Calvin wrote. They held that religion consisted in the union of the SQ1.11 with God, and that such as had attained to such an union were free from the restraints of morality. All agE' have been more or less infested by such fanatics. They naturally flourished in a time of such religious excitement as the Reformation. SEC. I.] OF THE OLD TESTA11EXT. 189 It seems that this Article also incidentally alludes to some persons who would have retained not only the n10ral, but the ceremonial part of the J'\Iosaic La\v. This of course ill ust have been true of all the early Judaizing Christian teachers. In the history given of the doctrine of the first Article, we have seen that some part of the Eastern Church was materially corrupted with these Judaizing tendt:>ncies. The observance of the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, the quartodecin1an ill'ode of calculating Easter, and similar observances, have been already mentioned, as examples of this kind. ..\s regards the belief, that Christian commonwealths ought to be regulated after the n10del of the Jewish polity, and according to the civil precepts of the Old Testament, it seems likely that the Anabaptists of lunster, who seized on that city and set up a religious common\vealth among themselves, endeavoured to con- form tbeir regulations in great measure to the laws of the Jewish economy. 1 In later times in Great Britain, the Puritans, at the period of the Great Rebellion, were constantly using the language of the Old Testament, as authority for their condnct in civil affairs, and as a gnide for the administration of the COlnn10nwealth. It is highly probable that, at the period of the Reformation, the whole question concerning the agreement of the Old with the New Testament ,vas a good deal debated. 'The prominent manner in which the subject of Justification 'vas then brought forward, naturally suggested topics of this kind. vVhen men were told, in the strongest terms, that there was not, and could not be, any hope of salvation to them but by. faith in Christ, and that this was altogether independent of any luerits of their own, and could not be obtained by works of the Law; it obviously and naturally occurred to them to enquire, Ho\v then \vere the fathers under the Old Testament saved? They had never heard of Christ, and could not be saved by faith in Him. They IU.td only a law of works for their guidance. Can then the Old Tf'stalnent be contrary to the New? I See )lu:sheim, as abu\ e. 190 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [ART. VII. SECTION IT.-SCRIPTURA.L PROOF. I N endeavouring to show the correspondence of this Árticle of our Church ,vith the truth of Scripture, it will be desirable to consider the subjects of it, in the order already adopted in speaking of their hi tory. I. First, we may consider the statelnent, that eternal life is offered to mankind in the Old, as well as in the Ne,v Testament, through Jesus Christ; and that the fathers looked for more than transi tory promises. II. Secondly, we may treat of the questions concerning the abrogation of the civil and ceremonial, and concerning the per- manency of the n10ral L:nv. I. Row we shall find it more convenient to treat the first division of our sl1 ject in the following order: I. To consider the nature of the La'w of 1\10ses, and the reason why eternal life is not Inore clearl '" set forth as one of its promIses. 2. rro speak of the promises, in the Old Testalnent, of a :ßIediator and Relleemer. 3. To show that under the old Covenant there was a hope al110ng the pious of a future state and life eternal. I. The character of the Law of Moses ,vas peculiar to itself. God chose the people of Israel to be His own kingdom on earth. There ,vere reasons, sonle kno,vn only to God, otl1ers revealed to us, ,vhy for two thousand years it pleased Him to preserve His truth an1id surrounding idolatry, by comlnitting it entirely to one chosen race. That people He constituted His own subjects, and ruled over thenl, as their Sovereign and La\vgiver. The Jewish cO[llmon ealth, therefore, ,vas neither a l\lonarchy under the I(ings, nor an Aristocracy under the Judges, but it ,yas alw:;tys a Theocracy. The people had properly no l{ing but God. )loses 'vas His vicegerent, so was Joshua, and after them the (.Tudges exerci:sec1, from tinle to time, more or less of the saIne delegated authority. In the tiIne of Samuel, the people, in a spirit of un- belief, asked for the presence of a visible king; and thereby greatly sinned against God, as dissatisfied ,vith his invisible enlpire, and rebelling against the government ,vhich He had I established oyer them. He however consented to grant them a I I , I SEC. 1r.J OF THE OLD TESTA:\IENT. 191 temporal ruler, an earthly king. ì et the king so appointed did not rule in- his own name, but as tbe viceroy and lieutenant of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies, the I(ing of the kingdom of Israel. .An the laws then ,vere ministered in His nanle. AU tIle sanctions of those laws had reference to Him, as Ruler and Law- giver. The Tabernacle, and afterward:s the Temple, were not sinlply places of worship; they were rather the Itoyal Palace, as J erusalenl was the city of the Great King. In the Tenlple His throne was the mercy-seat, and between the attendant Cherubim He was present in the cloud of glory, to be approached with the homage of incense and prayer, and to be consulted as to His pleasure by His chief n1Ïnistel', the High Priest, \vith the U rinL and Thummim. Accordingly, the Law given by ::JIoses was the constitution and statute-book of the Theocratic commonwealth. It ,vas indeed H guide for the life and manners of the people; but it ,vas their guide especially as they were subjects of the temporal govern- Inent of the Lord. rThe .L hnighty is, in His own nature and His own will, unchangeable; and therefore the laws, which regulate morality, must ever be the same. Hence, when for a tilne lIe assumed the governnlent of a tenlporal kingdoll1, u1urder, theft, adultery, and other crÍlnes against justice, mercy, truth, and purity, ,vere forbidden and punished as a thing of course. But, over and above this, when God became the I(ing of the nation, certain sins against Him becan1e, not only moral, but civil of- fences. Idolatry was high treason, and direct rebellion. It \vas not, therefore, as in general, left to the judgment of the hereafter, but was proceeded against at once, as a state-crime of the highest Inagnitl1de, and punished innnediately with temporal death. The like may be said concerning the destruction of God.s enelnies, the Amorites, the ..Amalekites, the Philistines, and others. They were the foes of the King of Israel, and were to be exter- minated accordingly. So again, much of the ceremonial of the La\v constituted the state ceremonial of the invisible I(ing. The earthly sovereign, the priests and the Levites) were His court and His n1Ïnisters. Custom and tribute were paid to Him, as they ,yould have been naturaIly paid to the rulers in all the kingdoms of the ,vorlel. Now such being the case, we may understand at once why all the sanctions of the Law are temporal, and not eternal. In many instances, indeed, the punishments denounced "ere to be executed ]92 OF THE OLD TESTA IE T. [ ART. VII. by the civil magistrate. There were rules laid do\vn as to the administration of justice by the inferior officers in the common- wealth of Israel. But in other cases the vengeance denounced is to be executed, not by the inferior magistrate, but l>y the supreme Head, the ICing of Israel Himself. Yet still the principle is the same. 'Yhether the King Himself is to be the judge, or the priest, or the Inagistrate, the reason for the judgment is the same. And accordingly God, ,vho was their king, interfered, not as in other nations by an ordinary Providence, but signally and mani- festly, by direct, obvious, miraculous interposition. The obedient su bject \vas rewarded by his bountiful Sovereign with long life and peace and prosperity; the disobedient was smitten with sickness, affiicted with poverty, or struck down by death. If at any time the nation becalne generally disobedient, Prophets were sent to it, ,vho were luessengers froln the ICing, to exhort His subjects to preserve their allegiance, and return to their duty. Even they, like the Law itself, spoke to the people, for the B]Ost part, as subjects of the tenlporal kingdom of the Lord, and adillonished them of the danger of not submitting themselves to their lawful Sovereign. 'Vhether then we look to the Law or to the Prophets, ,ve can see good reason why neither eternal life nor eternal death should be the sanction set forth, and the motives pressed upon the people. The Jewish dispensation 'vas in every way extraordinary. 'Ye often mistake its nature, by viewing it as if it ,vere the first full decla- ration of God's will to man; whereas the patriarchal religion had already existed for full t\VO thousand years before it, and the La\v , was added' (7rpO() TÉe1'J, Gal. iii. 19) to serve only for a time, and for a peculiar purpose. Its object, at least its direct and apparent object, was, not to set forth the way of eternal life, but to be the statute-law of the rrheocracy, and to subserve the purposes of a carnal and preparatory dispensation, \vherein the kno\vledge of God and the hopes of a :ßfessiah \vere preserved amid the dark- l1ess of surrounding heathenism, till the day dawned and the day- star arose. The Je\v , indepd, \vho \vere contemporary \vith Christ and His Apostles, vainly supposed that the Law of loses had in it a life-giving power. They stumbled at that stunlbling-stone, for they sought eternal salvation, 'not by faith in Christ, but as it \vere by the works of the La\v' (Rom. ix. 32). Whereas, the Law was not given for that purpose, but \vith an object relnarkably different from that. ' If, indeed, a law had been given, ,vhich ,vas capable :--;EC. 11.] OF THE OLD TESTA11ENT. 193 of giving life, then would righteousness (or justification) have been b, a law.' 1 But law, though essential for the regulation of Jnanne s, is, of its own nature, incapable of giving eternal salva- tion; for he who obeys its ordinances can, at most, but deserve to escape frorn its penalties. And this is still more emphatically true of men polluted by sin and compassed by infirmity. For la\y provides no propitiation, and offers no spiritual aid. There must therefore bave been something more than la,v to save men from eternal ruin; and the Jew, by imagining that the law could do this, failed altogether of the righteousness of faith. Even the sacrifices under the La\v ha.d but a telTIpOrary effi- cacy. They served' for a carnal purifying' (7ípÒÇ T JI T Ç uapKòç KaBapÓTJ/TfJ., Heb. ix. 13). They satisfied for offences against the telllporal )Iajesty of the Great I(ing, and screened from the tem- poral punishlnent due to all transgressions of the Law which He had enacted. But there ,vas no profession, no promise wbatever, that they should satisfy for the sin of the soul. Indeed, for the heavier offences there was no propitiation set forth at all; whether these offences were against the I(ing, or against His subjects. For murder and adultery, for idolatry and blasphemy, there 'vas nothing left' but a certain fearful looking for of judgment.' 'The blood of buns and of goats ç;ould never take a,vay sin;' 'could never nlake the worshipper perfect as pertaining to the conscience.' . But beyond all this there 'vas still another purpose, for which the }'Iosaic economy was designed. 'The L3.ww"as our school- n1aster to bring us to Christ' (Gal. iii. 24). It was a dispensation professedly preparatory, and ilnperfect. It ,vas, therefore, so constructed by Infinite 'Visdom, that there should be an inward spirit vastly different from the outward letter of the Law. Ac- cordingly the ","'hole dispensation, as it was preparatory, so it was typical. The kingdom of Christ was the great antitype of the old Theocracy. rrhe Church is a Theocracy no,v, as much as Israel was then. And so all the ordinances of the temporal kingdoln were types and in1ages of the blessings of the spiritual kingdom. To this end, as well as to their Í1nmediate object, sen ed the priests and the tenlple, the altar and the sacrifices, the tribute ann the incense, and all th service of the sanctuary. The lette1 then of the Law could never offer salvation: but the spirit did. :IS ay, the letter of the Law was necessarily condemnatory, as it gave more 1 Gal. iii. 2 I. Ei '}'àp ió!J(}7j 1IóP.Of:; Ó ÓVVal- EVOf:; S 07rOL lJCJaL, Ó1ITWS èlv ÈK 1I6P.Ol' 7;11 OLKaLOCJVV7j. o 194 OF THE OLD TESTA:\lENT. [ART. VII. light and brought more obligations; but neither satisfied for transgressions, nor gave inward sanctificat.ion. And so it is written, , The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life' (2 Oor. iii. 6). The letter brought no pronlise of imn10rtality, but left men under condenlnation; but the spiritual meaning of the Law led Ineu to Christ, and so gave them life. It will not he necessary to go through the promises of the Old Testament ana the types of the La\v, to show that there was a promise of a :àIediator, and of redemption from the curse which Adam had brought upon us. The prolnise to Adanl of the se d of the woman-the proll1Íse to Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed-the prol11ise to David concerning his Son, who should sit upon his throne-the types of the passover, the scapegoat, the sacrifices on the day of atonement. the consecration OJ the high priest, the prophecies of David, of Isaiah, of Daniel, of Zechariah, of JYlalachi,-all readily occur to us as containing predictions, or exhibiting figures, \vhich set forth to the enlightened understanding the hope of future deliverance, and of a Redeenlcr who should turn away iniquity.! It is said lllOSt truly, that all this was il1yolved in much obscurity; and it can never be denied that the Je\v had a much less clear understanding, a much nlore pattial revelation of 'the truth as it is in Jesus,' than the least instructed Inember of the Ohristian Church. Nay,' the least in the kingdom of Heaven,' i.e., in the Gospel dispensation, 'is greater' in knowledge 'than he who was greatest' before the con1ing of Christ. But it should not be forgotten, that during the patriarchal ages God had revealed Hirnself to Adam and Enoch, to Noah and Abraham, and perhaps to many besides. We are not to suppose that the light of such primeval revelation, which guided men for more than twenty cen- turies, was of a sudden quenched in utter darkness. The tradi- tionary knowledge concerning a promised Iediator ,vas no doubt carefully cherished, and served to enlighten much which, in the Law, and even in the Prophets, might have been otherwise unin- telligible. And hence, the 11ediator, though but faintly shadowed out, \vas yet firmly b lieved in. "'tVe have our Lord's assurance, that' Abraham rejoiced to see His day; he sa\v it and was glad' (John viii. 5 6). We have St. Paul's assurance that the same I Abraham, having received the promise of the Redeemer, believed in it, and was justified by faith. 2 And we may ,veIl su ppose, that I 1 See the author's J}Iessil1h as Foretold and Expected. London: Bell and Daldy. I 2 Rom. iv. 1-20. Gal. iii. 6-9, 14-19. I I SEC. Ir.J OF THE OLD TE TA:\IENT. 195 the faith, which guided ...A..brahaln, guided otbers, both before and after him. At first, indeed, and whilst patriarchal tradition yet survived, tbe intilnations of a )lediator in the ancient Scriptures are less distinct and less intelligible. But among the later prophets, \vhen that early tradition Inay have had less weight, and when the day of Christ wns more nearly approaching, the promises may be reaLl Inore plainly, and the Gospel-history be alnlost deciphered in the sacred elublems of prophecy. 3. .Are ,ve then to suppose, notwithstanding this, that the fathers looked only for transitory promises? It is a truth, which, I think, cannot be denied, that :ßloses does not bring pron1Ï ently forward the doctrine of a future state. That ,vas a subject which did not fall in .with his purpose. His nlission was to organize the Jewish Comulonwealth, and embody in writing the statute-la,v of the Theocracy. That Theocracy, as has been said, was a temporal king-c1oln, though God was its I{ing. Hence naturally he does not bring forward the doctrine of a future life. l In addition to the writing of the laws of Israel, Ioses gives also a brief, a very brief, sketch of the history of the nation, and of its nlore illustrious ancestors. It is probable enough, that no very frequent allusion to a future existence migh t occur in this history; and it is only in the historical, not at all in the legislative writings, that we could expect to nleet with it. 2 It has been already eXplained that even the prophets, \vho succeeded :.JIoses, acted much as messengers from the Sovereign of Israel to His rebellious sub- jects, and hence naturally spoke much concerning obedience to His Law and the sanctions of that La\v, which we kno\y were temporal. Yet in nlany of the prophets, clear notices not on l) of a lIediator and a hereafter, but perhaps also of a Resurrection, are to be met with. Even Bishop 'Varburton, though strongly maintaining that the earlier Jews had no know ledge of a life to come, yet adll1its that in later times they becalne fully acquainted with the truth of it. The principal passages in the books of }'Ioses, which seem to prove that the patriarchs believed in an eternity, and that a knowledge of it was general in the days of :\loses himself, are as follows :- 1 Up. Warburton asserts that he stu- diously conceals it. This requires m-ore proof than the Bishop has given. Eternal life was not a sanction of the Law, and therefore does not appear in it. It does not follow that it was purposely con- cealed. 2 Yet in Deut. xviii. I I, we find an incidental acknowledgment of a future state in the words rendered 'a necro- mancer,' literally, 'one who seeketh to the dead.' See wLancaster, Harmo'1lyof the Law and the GO.' pel with regard to a Future State, p. 292. o 2 l!JG OF THE OLD TESTA IEXT. [ART. .YII. (I) The account of the translation of Enoch, Gen. v. 24. This account, indeed, is brief and obscul e. "\Ve know, 110wéver, from other sources \vhat it means, and its obscurity rather seeIns 01 to argue that it ,vas, as is Inost likel} , a fact generally known and ,yell understood, and so not needing to be longer dwelt upon. But its obscurity is a little magnified; for ,ve clearly enough learn fron1 the passage that, ,vhereas in general long life was a promised. blessing, yet in the case of Enoch a still greater blessing was con- ferred. For, ,vhereas all other persons in the saIne chapter are spoken of as living long and then dying, Enoch's is said to have been comparatively a short life; and then it is said, that, because of his piety, , God took him.' ( Enoch \valked with God; and he ,vas not, for God tuok him.' It is hard to know what other sense could be attacheù to the passage, except that give it by St. Paul: , Enoch ,vas translated that he should not see death' (Heb. xi. 5). Now people who kne\v of the translation of Enoch HUlst have known sonJething of that state of bliss to which he ,vas removed. (:2) Accordingly, Jacob on his death-bed utters an ejaculation utterly unconnected with the immediate context: 'I have ,vaited for Thy Salvation, 0 Lord' (Gen. xlix. 18). What salvation Jacob could have waited for, who in this very chapter looks forward to far fnture fortunes for his children, before' the Shiloh should CaIne, and to Hin1 should be the gathering of the people,' except it ,vere the sahTation of his own soul, ,vhich he was just about to breathe forth, has never been clearly explained. (3) Balaalll ,vas so well acquainted ,vith the truth (though so little obedient to it), as to ,vish to ' die the death of the righteous,' and that his' last end should be like his' (N u m. xxiii. 10). K ow, the promise of the La\v was to the l1fe of the righteous; the pron1ises of ten1poral blessing nlust all affect life, rather than death. It is natural for a believer in a blessed. Îlnmortality to ,vish for snch a death and such a 1ast end as awaits the just. But froin a person who believes all God's promises to be made to this life, and looks forward to no life beyond, snch an exclama- tion seems hardly ilJtelligible. (4) There is a saying of )loses hinlself, which seen1S probably to irllply the same thing. J llst before his death be says of Israel, '0 that they were wise, that they understood this, that they I \vonld consider their latter end!' It is undoubtedly not certain I that JÌ"ì;:t , 'latter end,' here means death. Perhaps it should be said, it pr.obably does not lTIean death; but it means either futnrity or final condition. . And, though we n1ay allo,, that the SEC. lr.J OF THE OLD TEST.\ IENT. 197 force of the passage is not unquestionable; its 1110st natural inter- pretation would be, that it ,vas a ,vish that the people of Israel were thoughtful of that time when worldly objects of interest should pass away, and their end draw nigh, when wisc10nl and piety only should profit thenl. 'Ve COllie next to the famous pas age in the Book of J ob. 1 \.s the " ords stand in our Authorized Version, thE'Y prove Job's belief, not only in a future life, but in a resurrection of the body: 'Oh that n1Y words were now written! Oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and leaà in the rock for eyer! For I know that n1Y Redeeluer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though, after IllY skin, \vorms destroy this hody, yet in my flesh shall I see God: wholn I shall see for myself, and n1Ïne eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.' (Job xix. 23-27.) There are, without doubt, difficulties in this translation. The passnge is in nlallY points obscure, though not more so than the Book of Job in generaL The l110re literal rendering of the last three verses is, perhaps, as follows: 'For I, even I, know that n1Y Redeemer liveth, and hereafter shan stand above the dust. And though, after nlY skin, this (body) be destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God: \VhOln I shall see for nlyself, and n1Ïne eyes shall behold, and no stranger; 111,Y reins are consumed within me.' On the whole, whatever rendering is given to it, it is hardly possible that the passage should not appear to prove a belief in a future existence. The words 'from my flesh' indeed nlay bE' interpreted differently according to the different senses attached 1 The date and authorship of the Book of Job is a question in some degree afft'ct- ing the question in the text. Iost scho. lar:;; consider the book as one of the earlieRt in the Bible; and many have believed that it was writtpn by roseR. Ep. 'V ar- burton argues that it was not written till the captivity, or the return from cap- tivity; and that it is a dramatic compo- sition rather than a real history (ÐÜ'inc Legation, Bk. VI. Sect. n.). The question is not to be sf'ttled with a few words. I can only say that it appears to me to bear the marks of great antiquity. It is true, that it is not such pure Hebrew as some parts of the Olù Te taIllent ; or rather that it contains a great many Hebrew WOl'ds and phrasps which are not common in the other books of the Bible, and for the explanation of which we must look to the Syriac and Arabic languages. But tht-' style is very little like the style of the later b(ìok , which contain a certain num- ber of Chaldaism!':, and e"en some Chaldee, Rllch as Daniel, Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, )Ialachi, and some of the P8alm:-;. The Aramaisms of Job are very unlike the e ; and so is the whole style and character of the Hebrew. It is i deed exactly wha.t mi ht be expected from a very ancient writer, who wrote in Hebrf>w an account of dialogues originally held in an ancient dialect of Arabic. 'Vhether or not fi'Ioses was the writer is another question. It seems very doubtful, if not highly iu!prt)- hable. 198 OF THE OLD 'l'E TAMENT. [ART. .VII. to the preposition: and whereas our translators have rendered it, (in Iny flesh,' sonle eminent scholars have maintained that we should render it ('lc.zthoZlt my flesh.' 1 Yet the only difference \vhich such a different interpretation might cause would be, that, according to the first, Job hoped to see his Redeemer at the llesu1"rection,. according to the latter, that he expected the same glorious vision as a disembodied spirit. It is however argued, that it is very renlarka ble that no indi- cation, save this, of a belief in an immortality occurs in the Book of Job. It. "would be natural, it is said, ,vhen Job's friends charge him \vith \yickedness, and attribute his sorrows to his sins, that he should at once ans\ver, that, though miserable in this life, he yet had full hope of happiness in a better. As therefore no such reasoning is to be found, we Inust necessarily conclude that Job ,vas ignorant of a future state; and that this particular passage, instead of being an anticipation of a future Resurrection, is a prophetic declaration of his belief in \vhat actually afterwards took place-namely, that though for a tinle the disease \yhich afflicted him ,vas permitted to destroy his body, yet, in the end, God should be n1anifested to defend his cause, and that he should be permitted to see HÏ1n ,vith his own eyes. I anI inclined to attribute but little ","eight to the previous silence of Job concerning the life to come. Men at that time generally. believed that a special Providence brought good upon the righteous, and evil on the wicked in this life; and in the earlier days of the Jewish commonwealth it doubtless ,vas so. Job shares this belief ,vith his friends; yet he is conscious of his integrity, and defends hin1self earnestly against their accusations. It is hardly likely that he should have tried to disprove the justice of a creed \vhich he held himself. Therefore he does not say that they were wrong in believing in a retributive Providence, or urge 1 80 RosenmÜller. Præfixum l? ante 'IirJll Rig-nificat defectum, ut Isa1. xlix. 15, A.;' bli 'iscetur mulie'1' filioli sui tJ iJ!. r('.' ecta rnisao,tione, i.e., et non misereatur ejus. I Sam. X\'. 26, Rejecit tc Deus '9 i1i'l ut non sis 'rex. Ita 'I! rP accurate respondet priori hemistichio, ut lltroque corpus suum dissol vi significet (Schol. in Job xix. 26). 'Vhether the use of in the passages thus adduced from Isaiah and Samuel is at an similar to the use of the same preposition in this passage of Job, others must decide. To me it appears that there is little or no analogy. To reject a person 'from being king,'- to 'forget a child so as not to love it/- are ,'astly different notions of the preposi- tion 7J from that ought to be attached to it here-viz., "l1.Jitho1lt my flesh.' Rosen- müller, ha,'ing given this sense to the preposition, is obliged to say that it is only by a strong poetical figure that Job is said to see his Redeemer, 'without his flesh,' signifying merely that, though much wa ted with disease, he yet hoped to live to Ree his canse defended, and hiB uprightness v indicated. Should we ven- ture to apply such criticism to any pro- fane author 1 SEC. II. ] OF THE OLD TESTAlvIENT. 199 t hE'm to look forward from this life to a better. This "vould have been in Job an improbable and unnatural course. But from the singular solemnity with which he ushers in the passage in question, tbe hope that he expresses, that it 'may be printed in a book,' nay, 'graven in the rock for ever,' we may well believe that he is about to give utterancE' to something different from what he has hitherto been speaking of, and to something so important that he ,vishes it to be preserved, not only for his own time, as a solemn assertion of his innocence, but that it should be handed down to all future generations as a vital and an eternal truth. Now nothing could be more appropriate than such an intro- duction, if Job were about to speak of the general Resurrection and his hope that he should be comforted and vindicated then. That was an argument unlike any he had urged before, and it was a truth of universal and common interest, so that he might well wish to have the ,vords, which spake of it, 'printed in a book, yea, graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever.' It is true, there are expressions in the book of Job which may bE' interpreted into a denial of the doctrine of a future existence. For instance, , As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth a\vay, so he that goeth down to the grave shall COlne up no nlore' (Job vii. 9). , So nlan lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep' (Job xiv. 12). And again (vel'. 14), 'If a man die, shall he live again? ' Bishop 'Varburton lays great stress on these passages, as proving that Job was ignorant of a Resurrection, and even of a future state. Hnt in all fairness, do they mean any more than this, that if a Inan die, he shall live no more in this life; if he goes down to the grave, he shall come up no more, while this ,vorld is remaining? This interpretation fully satisfies the force of all the expressions, even of that strongest of all, , man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake.' Nay, we nlay almost venture to say, that this last expression has a more than commonly Christian sound; for tbe e,,, Testament teaches us, that the general Resurrection at the last day shall not be tin 'the heavens shall pass a,vay \vith a great noise, and the elenlents shall Inelt with fervent heat.' (2 Pet. iii. 10, compo Rey. xx. I I.) It may be .added, that the very verse which follows this passage in Job (a passage \vhich is thought so decisive against his belief in a hereafter) appears to carry ,vith it a refutation of such a theory; for in that yerse (Job xiv. 13) the patriarch prays that God' would hide him in the grave ( N in I-Iades), and keep him secret till 200 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [A.RT VIL His ,vrath ,vas past; that He .would appoint hinl a set tinle, and then remember him.' vVhat could be the meaning of God's hiding hinl in I-Iades, or in the grave, till His wrath was past, and then after a set tirne renlembering him, if such language was used by one \v ho knew nothing of life and immortality? For the ,vord Skeal, be it observed, whatever diversity of opinion there nlay be concerning it, has neyer been supposed by anyone to nlean anything which is unconnected ,vith the state of the Jead. It must be either the grave, or the state of departed souls. Choose \vhich we will ; Job wishes for a temporary conceahnent in the grave, or in the state of the departed, and then to be remen1bered, and, we can scarce fail to infer, to be raised up again. With such a hope and such an expectation, will well correspond such expressions as, 'Though He slay 111e, yet \vill I trust in Him' (Job xiii. 15). But how shall we interpret thenl, if they be the language of one whose hopes were all bounded by this life? In the Book of Psalms, David, in a passage which we know to be prophetic of .:\Iessiah, speaks as follo\vs: 'I have set the Lord al ways before 111e: because He is at nlY right hand I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and Iny glory 1 rejoiceth: yea, my flesh also shall rest in confidence. 2 For thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades: neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt sho\v nle the path of life: in Thy presence is fulness of joy: at Thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.' (rs. xvi. 8- I 1.) In the ears of a Christian such language is so plainly expres- sive of the hope of resurrection, that it. is difficult to attach any other meaning to it. Nay, we know that St. Peter quotes it as a prophecy that Christ should be raised from the dead, His soul not resting in Hades, His body not turning to corruption (Acts ii. 25-3 I). The passage then, according to the Apostle's conlment on it, actually did mean a resurrection. The only question is, Did the Psalmist, when he wrote it, so understand it; or did he ,vrite of common things, unconsciously to himself and through the guidance of the Spirit speaking deep mysteries? It is possible that the latter may have been the case. And yet the words chosen seem to make it improbable. vVhy does he say, after speaking of the gladness of his heart., and the rejoicing of his spirit, that 'even 1 't1 :P ':VI Y glory' pn,ùably a poetical expression for the ltea:l.t or the soul. S (} Gesenius :' s. v. 2 n in confidence, securely. SEC. II.J OF THE OLD TESTAl\IENT. 201 his flesh should rest in confidence'?' This looks much like an assurancE', that not only the heart might rejoice in God, but even tbat the body had hope of inlmortality. .A..nd then, 'Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.' liac1 he meant that he should not be pennitt d to Jie, it would have been natural to say, 'Thou wilt not bring 1Jte dou.n to hell.' But he who hopes not to be left in Hades, rnust surely bave expectation of first going thither. The words therefore of themselves so plainly imply a resurrection, and are so apparently chosen for tbe purpose of expressing the hope of a resurrection, that, though we 111ay admit that profound ignorance on the subject Inay have kept the prophet from understanding thenl, and have blinded his eyes that he should not see their sense; yet nothing short of this would have hindered him, w.ho uttered the language, from feeling inspired with a hope full of imn10rtality.l Again, the view which David takes elsewhere of the diflèrence between the end of the righteous and of the ,vicked, is consonant with the hope of a future retribution; and other\vise is unintelli- gible. (Ps. xxxvii. 37, 38.) , rark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that nlan is peace. But the trans- gressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the \vickcd shall be cut off.' In like manner his confiJence in trials and troll bIes, when the wicked prosper and the just are oppressed, has at least a striking resemblance to the language of one who looks for a time when the just shall be delivered and the wicked cOl1sunled in judgment. Thus in P:3alm xxiii. 4, David says, ' rhough I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me.' To' wa1k through the valley of the shadow of death,' is probably but a poetical phrase for' to die;' and to those who looked only for temporal blessings, death would be well-nigh the greatest 'e'Cil.' Hence he ,vho could die, and yet' fear no evil,' must have had a hope after death. So in Psaln1 lxxiii., if this were David's, then David, but if not, then Åsaph, ,vho i .not likely to have known more than David, having spoken of his having envied the "icked, when he saw theln in prosperity, and when he found himself 1 It must be remembered that those persons who think .J ob and David and others ignorant of a future state, yet ad- mit, nay contend, that all their neighbours round about were fully cognizant of such ;1 doctrine. (See \Yarburton, Ek. v. v.) Huw then came it to pass that .J ob, who was an Arab, and David, who was no con- queror, and had dwelt among the Phiìis- tines, and become acquainted with many peoples, should have used language con- cerning a tenet, which they almost nJU t ha 'oe heard from neigh bouring nations, and )7t-'t not have underòtood it them::;eh-es 1 202 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [ART. VIT. cbastened and afflicted, concludes in this manner: 'Thus my heart ,vas grieved, and I was pricked in my reins. So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before Thee. Nevertheless I am alwa y s with Thee: Thou hast holden me bv Inv riabt hand. Thou 01 01 0 shalt guide me ,vith Thy counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory' (Ps. lxxiii. 21-24). 1'he' glory' is not of necessity glory everlasting: but it is hardly necessary to observe that such a senS8 of the word suits the context better than any lower inter- pretation of it. l As David thus seems to have had hope of something after death, 80 his son Solomon knew that' when a wicked nlan dieth, his expectation shall perish' (Prov. xi. 7); that 'The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in his death' (Prov. xiv. 32). But what hope has the righteous more than the ,vicked, or how does the expectation of the \vicked, more than that of the just, perish when he dieth; unless there be a something after death, which gi\res hope to the one, but takes it away from the other? Again, Solon10n tells us (Eccles. xii. 7). that at death 'shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it;' signifying, as it plainly seems, that, ,vhen the body returns to that froln ,vhich it was taken, the spirit shall return into the hand of Him who gaye it, not perishing with the body, but awaiting the judgment of its God. 2 1 There are, no doubt, some expres- ions in the P:-:alms, which seem to imply an ignorance of a future ]ife, e.g. : , In death there is no remembrance of Thee; in the gra \'e who shall give Thee thanks ' (P:-:. vi. 5.) 'Shall the dust praise Thee shall it declare Thy truth ' (Pd. xxx. 9.) '\Vilt thou show wonders to the dead shall the dead arise and praise Tht-'e shall thy loving-kindness be declared in the grave or Thy faithfulness in destruction Shall Thy wonders be known in the dark? and Thy righ teousness in the land of forgetfulness?' (Ps.lxxxviii. 10-12. ) These are certainly remarkab e expres- t5ions, but they dn not appear unaccount- able in a person who had been taught by the di!';pensation under which he lived, to look for temporal blessings as a reward for obedience, even though he was a be- liever in a future state. It is doubtful whether such language might not be used even by a Christian. Death is certainly a part of the curse; amI hence there is no wonder if the pious Jew dreaded it. And speaking concerning the silence of death does not nect-'ssarily imply a total disbelief in a resurrection. The f'ilence and for- getfulness may mean only forgptfulness as regards this world. 2 Ou this passage see Bishop Bull, TVorks, Oxf. 1827, Vol. I. p. 29. Bishop \Varburton's I3trongest passage is from Ecclesiastf's : , The Ii \"ing know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.' (EccJes. ix. 5. ) The Book of Ecclesiastes is one, the language of which is singularly obscure. The passage in question, if taken in its context, may, however, be interprete with no great difficulty. The rOJal Preacher observes, that there i,;; one event to all men, from which no one shall escape; and whatever good things he llJay enjoy in this life, yet death will surely soon depri\Te him of them all. This may llatm.ally em- bitter earthly enjoyments, for the living know that they shall die, and they may be assured that in death they win lose their consciousness of all things that have given them plp:1sure here, and re eive no more reward or emolument (' ) from SEC. 11.J OF THE OLD TESTA)IEKT. 202 'Yhen we conle to the prophets, it is scarcely denied by any that we n1eet with a mention of immortality. Bishop 'Varburton, ,vho is probably the ablest ,vriter, at least in the English language, in favour of the opinion that the early Jews knew nothing of a future state, yet admits that in the prophetic writings ,ve begin to see some clear intimations of that doctrine which was to be fully brought to light in the Gospel. rrwo remarkable passages are the following (Isai. xxyi. 19): C Thy dead men shall live, together with n1Y dead body shall they aris . Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew. is as the dew of herbs, anù the earth shall cast out the dead.' It is not necessary to determine whether there be here a distinct , prophecy of the Resurrection. It is enough to sho,v that Isaiah, and those he 'v rote for, believed in a Resurrection, if, to express even something else, he uses words to illustrate it, ,vl1Ìch in their most natural sense Ïlnply a Resurrection. 'Yhen ,ve use a figu- rative expression, we borrow the figure which we use frolll things familiar and understood among us. In the Book of Daniel a de cription is given, which so exactly corresponds with the Christian description of the last Judgment and the general llesurrection, that it must require the greatest ingenuity to give any other sense to it: 'At that tÍlne ThJ people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be ,vise shall shine as the brightness of the fÌrrnament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever' (Dan. xii. 1- 3). "\Ve have clearly seen (under Art. III.) that the Jews w}}o lived at the time of our Saviour, "yith the exception of the sect of the Sadducees, not only believed in the immortality of the oul, but in a Resurrection, and in an interu1edia t e state bet\veen death and Judgment. Thus St. Paul's appeal, when he was brought before the Sanhedrin1, ,yas agreeable to all, except the sect of the Sadducees: ':ßIen and brethren, I anl a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.' And the reason of this was, that, though the small and heretical sect of the Sadducees C said there was no resurrection, them. 'Their love and hatred and nvy perish; and they have no longer a portion in anything that is done under the sun.' Xow this seems the obvious meaning of th passage beginning ver. 2 and ending ver. 6. Does thi8 prove that Solomon did not believe in a future life? It is plain that he is speaking only of men's losing by death the good things and COIl- sciousness of enjoJment in this life. :20-1 OF THE OLD TESTAME T. [ -\.RT. VII. neither angel nor spirit;' yet the nlore orthodox and lllore ex- tensive sect of the' Pharisees confessed both' (Acts xxiii. 6, 8). There may have been sufficient obscurity in the Old Testament Scriptures to admit of the possibility of the existence of two differ- rent sects, the one holding, the other denying, a future imnlor- tality; )Tet there is abundant evidence fraIn the New Testanlent that the true interpretation was that adopted by the Pharisees, and that the Sadducees erred from ignorance and pride. Our I.ord indeed, ,vhen the Sadducees came to I-liIn and propounded to Him a difficnlty concerning the Resurrection, tells them at once that they' erred, not knowing the Scriptures' (l\1att xxii. 29). And though the passage \vhich our Lord adduces fronl the books of Ioses (Exac1. iii. 6), 'I aIn the God of Abrahanl, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,' requires SOllle explanation to show that it proved the doctrine in question; yet it is quite p1ain that our Lord reproves the Sadducees for dulness in not baving learned from the Old Testanlent, that' all lTIen live to God.' But the passage in the Ne\v Testament, which most fully assures us that the ancient fathers looked for heavenly promises, is the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebre\vs. In the first twelve versps the 1postle had been speaking of the faith of ....\..be1, Enoch, Noah, Abrahaul, Sarah, and perhaps of Isaac and Jacob; and he then adds (vv. 13- 16). 'These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and 'were persuaded of them, and em braced them, and confessed that they ,vere strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare p1ain1y that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been n1indful of that country fronl whence they can1e out, they n1Ìght have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: ,vherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for thelll a city.' In like manner (vv. 25, 26), he tells us that !loses chose , rather to suffer affliction \vith the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the tre:lsures in Egypt: /01' he had respect unto the 1'eC01npenCf of the reu'ard.' And other saints of the Old Testa- ment, he says, ' were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a vette'}' 1'es1t?'?'ection.' N O\V those 'w bo seek a better country, that is, an heavenly,' those \vho despise the pleasures of sin, and choose t is Vasta cupidilas, Amor intensissinw8, from // to desire. So in Hebrew, i1 :::r ur A R r1' I 0 1J EX. Of Fr('e }rill. De Libe,'o A ,'bitrio THE condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prppare himself by his own natural strength and ()od works to faith, and calling upon God ; wh refore we have no power to do good works, plea ant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us,1 when we have that good will. 2 EA est hominis post lapsum Adæ conditio ut sese naturalibns suis viribus et bonis f\peribus ad fidem et in vocationem Dei convertereac præpararenou possit. Quare absque gratia Dei (quæ per Christum est) nos præ\'eniente, ut velimus, etcoöperante dum volumu , ad pietatis opera facienda, quæ Deo grata sint et accepta, nihil va.- lemus. SECTIOX I.-HISTORY. rl IfE article on .Free 'Vill naturally follows that concernIng Original Sin; and much \vhich ,vas said on the latter sub- ject may be applicable to the explication of the former. The sentiments of the ..L-\postolical Fathers on Free 'Vill are probably nowhere very distinctly expressed. Their writings are rather practical than controversial; and hence these topics are not very likely to be discussed in them. That they fully and plainly teach the \yeakness of luan, and the necessity of Divine grace, cannot be questioned. The opinions of Justin :31artyr are lllore clearly and definitely put forth in his extant works, than are those of the ..Apostolical ]Tathers. In answer. to objections, which the Jews urged against the scheme of Christia.n doctrine-viz., that according to it there was an inevitable necessity that Christ should suffer, and therefore 1 This is the reading of the copy of the Articles as set forth in 157 I. In 1562 the words run, ' working in us,' and such was the reading in 1552. :! The Article, as it stood in 1552, began with the words, "Ve b::t\'e DO power. · The former part was prefixed in 1562 by Abp. Parker, having been taken from the \Virtemberg Confession, the words of which are: Quod autem llonnulli affirmant homini post lapsum talltam animi integritatem relictam, ut possit sese, natl1ralibus suis viribus et bonis operibu:"i, ad fidem et in- vocationem Dei convertere ac præparare, haud oh cnre pl1gnat cum Apostolica doctrina et cum vero Ecclesiæ Catbolicæ COI;} ensu. The latter p:.1,rt y which constituted the whole of the original Article, has adopted the language of St. Augustine: Sine i1lo vel operante nt Yeliml1 , \"pl coöperante cnm volumus, ad bonæ pietatis opera nihil valemus.-De Grati(t et Libero Arbitrio, cap. VII. See -\ hp. Laurpnce, B. L. pp. 101. 235. :254 OF FREE WIJ IJ. [ART. X: a necessity and constraint laid upon the J e\vs to crucify Him- Justin denies that God's forekno\vledge of ,vicked actions made IIim the author of those actions. He puts no restraint upon men's ,vills, but foretells certain evil actions, nòt because He causes, but simply because He foresees them. l In like nlanner, in thp first Apology, \vhich \vas addressed to heathens, he explains that our belief in the predictions of the Prophets does not oblige us to believe that things take place according to fate; for, if nlen acted under a fatal necessity: one could not be praised nor another blanle<1. 2 And in the second Apology he maintains, in opposition to the Stoics, who believed in an inevitable fate (Ka8' f:lp.app.JII1]ç àll ì'K]JlI 7rállTa Î'LIIEa-eaL), that it is the nature of all men to have a capacity fot. virtue and vice; for unless there ,vere a power of turning to either, there could be nothing praise\vorthy. 3 Yet with such a belief in the freedom of hunlan choice, Justin funy maintained the necessity of Divine grace and the inlpossibility of attaining salvation without the light and aid of God's Spirit. 4 In the earliest ages the Gnostic and other heretics held, to a great extent, the doctrines of Inaterial fatalisnl. We have already seen, tbat SOlne of the Gnostics considered actions as influenced by 01 the stars. 'Ve have seen also, that Florinus taught that God was the Author of evil, and that Irenæus, \vho had former]y been his friend, wrote against hinl. 5 Against such staten1ents Irenæus COH- stantly maintained hnn1an freec1om, and denied that the ,vill was a mere rnachine, acted on by good or evil principles, and itself passive under them. But the necessity of the grace of God's Holy Spirit he as strongly expressed, when occasion required. 6 The 1\farcionites maint.ained that the universe ,vas governed by two independent principles, one of good, nd the other of evil. rfhis naturally led to the belief in a physical restraint on the will of the creature. Accordingly, Tertullian, in disputing against them, strenuously contends that Îrliedom of the win 'vas given to 1 Dial. CU'17l, l'ryplwnc, Opera, p. 290. 2 Apol. I. Opel.a, p. 80. 3 Apol. II. Upel.a, p. 45. 4 B.g., 'Ewl 8EÒV TÒV 7T'áVTa 7T'ocfJCJ'avra iÀ 7rl nv OEL 7ráVTa , Kal 7T'ap' fKdvou p.ó- "ou UWT"YJpLa.v Kaì ßO'Y)(Jda.v !'Y)TÛV. åÀXà p.t} wç AOLWOÙÇ TWV úv(JPW7rWV, oLà "(fVOÇ 1) 7T' ^,oûrov 7} iCJ'Xùv 7} uoif>lav JlOP.L!fLJI óú- Jlau(JaL uWSfu8at.-Dial. c. l'ryph. Opp. p. 3 2 9. Concerning J ustin Iartyr's opinions on free wi11, consult Bp. Kaye's Justin I JlartYl', p. 75, ch III. ; }'aher's Primitive Doctl.ine of .Election, Bk. I. eh. XI. :; See History of the Xinth ArticJe. 6 E.g., Sicut arida terra, si non per- cipiat humorem, non fructificat : sic et nos, aridum lignum e istentes primum, nun- quam fructificaremus vitam, sine suprema volulltaria pluvia.-Adv. IIær. III. 19. Concerning the opinions of Irenæus on free will, see Faber as above, and Beaven's Account of 11.cnæus, ch. XI. p. I I2. I I i ! SEC. 1.J OF FREE WILL. 55 Adam.! From the same father we learn, that Valentinus taught that nlan was created of three different kinds,-spiritual, animal, and terrestrial; the first sort as Seth, the second as Abel, the third as Cain; and that, as the distinction 'was from birth, it ,vas consequently immutable. rfhe first kind were destined to certain salvation, the last to certain perdition, the lot of the second 'vas uncertain, depending on their greater inclination on the one hand to the spiritual, on the other to the carnal. 2 rfhe fathers who were contemporary with these heretics, ,vere naturally led, in disputing against them, to use strong language on the freedom of the ,vill; so that it is no wonder if, after the rise of Pelagius, his followers \vere ready to quote some of the ancients in defence of their errors. Origen was one of those who opposed the Iarcionite and Valentinian heresies; and his peculiar system of theology specially led him to more than ordinarily strong assertions of the freedom of the will. He took up the Platonic notion of the pre-existence of souls. The state of all created beings he believed to be regu- lated by their former actions. All souls were created free. Every rational creature was made capable of good or of evil. Angels and devils ,vere alike created capable of holiness or of wickedness. The devil and his ministers fell by abuse of freedom; the holy angels stood by a right use of it. 3 Every reasoning being is capable of degenerating or of improving, according as he follows or resists reason. l\Ien have been placed in different positions in this world; but it is because of their conduct in a former existence. Jacob ,,""as beloved of God 1110re than Esau, because in the former life he had lived more holily.4 A.ud as good or evil are substantially in none but the Holy rrrinity, but all holiness is in creatures only as an accident, it follows, that it is in us and in our own wills to be holy, or through sloth and negligence to decline frOln holiness to wicked- ness and perdition. 5 Holiness is attained or lost, much as nlusic or mathenlatics. No nlan becon1es a mathematician, or a musician, but by labour and study, and if he becomes idle and negligent, he win forrret what he has learnt, and cease to be skilful in his science o 1 Tertull. acl '. J.lfa,'rcion. Lib. II. 8, 9, lie. 2 Tertullian,.De .Anima, c. 21-30. See Bishop Kaye's Tel.tullian, pp. 330, 5 22 . 3 De Princip. Lib. I. cap. 5. 4 Lib. II. cap. 9, num. 7. 5 Et per hoc consequens est in nobis esse, atque in nostris motibu5, ut vel beaU vel sancti simns, vel per desidiarn et neg1i- gentiam a beatitudine in malitiam et per- ditionem vergamm;, in tantum ut nimiuH profectus (ut ita dixcrim) malitiæ, si qui in tan turn sui neglexerit, usque ad eum statum deveniat, ut ea qnæ dicitur COI1- traria \"irtus efficiatur. -.Lib. I. cap. 5, num. s. 256 OF :FREE WILL. [AJtT. X. or in his art; and so no man will be good, who does not practise goodness, and if he neglects self-discipline and is idle, he will soon lapse into sin and corruption.! Such language assigns so much strength to man, and keeps out of sight so much the necessity of Divine grace, that it has been truly said, not to have been' without reason, that St. Hierome accuses him of having furnished the Pelagians with principles;' though yet in some places he speaks very favourably of grace and of the assistance of God. 2 In later times, as we hav'e seen already, fanes and his fol- lowers held, that good or evil actions ,,",ere produced by the good or the evil principle. r.I'hey appeared to have believed, that men are acted on by these powers as an inaninlate stock, ,vhich D1ust passively submit to the impulses \vhich move it. 3 St. Augustine himself ,vas originally a fanichee. In his earlier treatises he constantly directs his argunlents against thp lanichean doctrines, a.s being those errors with which he was best acquainted, and which he dreaded lllost. 4 ....t\.fter the rise of Pelagianism, and when his efforts \vere chiefly directed to the overthrow of that }leresy, he speaks less frequently and clearly in favour of the original freedonl of the ,vill, and brings lllore prominently out those predestinarian opinions, which are so well known in connexion with his nanle. It would not, however, be true to say, that he nlaterially changed his opinions on that subject; for in some of his Illost decidedly Anti-Pelagian ,vritings, and whilst lllost strongly 11laintail1ing the sovereignty of Divine grace, he unequivocally asserts the freedom of the human will, s a gift of God to be used and accounted for. 5 The tenets of the Pelagians on this subject are expressed in one of the charges urged against Cælestius in the Council of Car- 1 Lib. I. cap. 4. . Dupin, Ecchsiasticalll ist. Cent. III. Orig-en. It SeélTlS as if Clement of Alexandria pressed the doctrine of free will to a very undue extent, though not so far nor so 'ystematical1y as his great pupil Ori!je.n. See Bp. l{aye's Ule'1Jìent of Alexandria, ch. x. p. 429. 3 Beausobre, and apparently Lardner who quotes him, doubt whether the 1\1a- llichees did believe the will to bp so thoroughly enslaved. See Lardner, 11i8t. of llfaniclwc:3, Sec. IV. 13, VoL Ill. P.474. 4 For insb.nce, see the treatise Dc Libero Arbit;'io, Opp. Tom. I. 5 }'or example, Dr SpÍ1'it.u ä Litera, S 52, Tom. x. p. II 4. Liberum rgo arbitrinm evacuamns p..;r gratiam? Absit, RPd magi::; liberum arbitrium statuimus. Sicut enim lex per fidem, sic liberum arbitrium per gratiam I non evacuatur sed statuitur. Neque enim lex irnpletur nisi libero arbitrio: sed per legem cognitio peccati, per fidem impe- tratio gratiæcontra peccatum, per gratiam sanatio animæ a vitio peccati, per animæ sanitatem libertas arbitrii, per liberum ar- bitrium justitiædiIectio, per justitiædiìec- tionem legis operatio. Ac per hoc, sicut lex non evacuatur, sed statuitllr per fidem, quia fides impetrat gratiam, qua lex im- pleatur: ita libernm a.rbitrium non eva- cuatur PÇr gratiam, sed statuitur, quia gratia sanat voluntatem, qua justitia libere di1igatur. SEC. I.] OF FREE 'YILL. 257 thage. 'That a man may be without sin and keep the cornmand- Jnents of God if he will; , 1 or in the passage which Augustine cites fronl his work, 'Our victory proceeds not from the help of God, but from the freedom of will.' 2 The Semi-Pelagians, though they did not deny the necessity of grace, yet taught, that preventing grace was not necessary to produce the beginnings of true repent- ance, tbat everyone could by natural strength turn towards God, but that no one could advance and persevere without the assist- ance of the Spirit of God. 3 In the ninth century, Goteschalc, a Saxon divine, broached strong predestinarian doctrines, which, of course, 1110re or less embraced the subject of the present Article; for, as he is said to have held tbat God eternallv decreed some nlen to salvation and oJ others to perdition, he nlust have held, that the will was in a great degree subject to an inevitable neces ity.4 The history of this controversy, however, more properly belongs to the seventeenth Article. The disputes on the doctrines of Gotescha]c divided the writers of his day. He was defended by llatramn, monk of Corby, fa.nlous on more accounts than one, and condemned by Rabanus !laurlls and Johannes Scotus Erigena. In the 12th century flourished Peter, surnalned Lorn bardus or Lorn bard, Archbishop of Paris, ,vho wrote a book called Liber Sententia1'unl, in which he compiled extracts from the fathers on different points of faith and doctrine, from which he was afterwards known as the JIaJister Sententiærum, or }'Iaslel' of the Sentences. His ,york became the text-book for future disputants, t.he store- house for scholastic polemics, esteemed well-nigh upon a par with Scripture itsel f. The schoolmen, w 10 folIowed hilu, and flourished chiefly in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, discussed to a great extent the questions concerning predestination and the freedom of the will. 'The most famous of these, as being heads of powerful and opposing parties, were Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican friar, of a philosophical spirit and great learning, and ,vas known by the nan1e of Doctor I \Vall, Infant Baptism, Vol. I. p. 357 ; Collier, Brcl. IIi-st. Book I., and the account of Pelagianism given under Ar- ticle IX. 2 Victoriam nostram non ex Dei esse adjutorio, sed ex libero arbitrio.-August. De Gestis Pelagii. Tom. x. p. 2 I 5. 3 l\Iosheirn, Eccl. HiM. Cent. v. Part II. ch. v. 26. Vitalis held that' God did WOl.k in us to will, by the Scriptures either read or heard by UR ; but that to consent to them or not consent is so in our own power, that if We will it may be done.'-August. Epis f . eVIl., ad ritalcm. -1 See )fosbeim, Cent. IX. Part II. chap. III. 9- 8 .....J OF FREE 'VILL. [ART. X. Uni-vcrsal'is, or Angelic /;s. He "as born in Italy, A..D. 1224, and died in I 2 ï 4. His n10st fatuous 'york is his Summa Theologiæ. In philosophy he was a Realist; in theology, a' disciple of St. Augustine and therefore opposed to that belief too prevalent anlong tbe schoohnen, that the gift of grace was dependent on the manner in ,y hich men exercised their merely natural endowments (pU1Yt natuTalia). Duns Scotus, born at Dunston, in Northumber- land, about the period of the death of ... quinas, was a Franciscan. He attacked the system of Thomas Aquinas, and acquired the name of Doctor Subtili8. lIe so strongly maintained the doctrine of the freedom of the will, as to approximate suspiciously to the error of l>elagius. Duns Scotns was the founder of the School called the Scotists, to which the Franciscan friars belonged. The followers of Tho111aS Aquinas were called Tho1ni8ts and to these belonged the DOIDinicans, w.ho .with the Franciscans divided between them the learning .of the Christian world in the ages precedi ng the T eform ation. In reasoning on the subject of hUIDan will, and the need of grace to produce holiness, the school-authors invented a mode of speaking, alluded to in our thirteenth Article, by \vhich they endeavoured to reconcile some of the apparent difficulties of the question. They observed, that Cornelius, before his baptism and a knowledge of the Gospel, had put up prayers and given alms, which are spoken of in Scripture as acceptable to God. 1 They thought, therefore, that some degree of goodness was attributable to unassisted efforts on the pa,rt of Ulan towards the attainment of holiness; and, though they did not hold, that such efforts did, of their o,vn merit, deserve grace, yet they taught that in some degree they were such as to call do,vn the grace of God upon them, it being not indeed obligator y on the justice of God to re\"\"ard such efforts by giving His grace, but it being agreeable to His nature and goodness to bestow. grace OIl those who make such efforts. Endeavours, then, on the part of man to att.ain to god- liness were by the schoolmen said to deserve grace de cong1"1.lC!, of -congruity. But, when once grace was given, then it enabled the recipient to deserve at the hands of God, not only further grace, but even in the end everlasting life. All this of course 'vas to be considered as depending on the atonement of Christ; but ,vhat- I ever was presupposed, it remarkably tended to the exalting the I power of th e \vill, and the strength of unassisted nlan. 2 1 Actsx.4: 'Thyprayersandthinealm 2 Laurence, B. L. Strm. IV. and the I are come up for a memorial before God.' I notes to that Serm. passim. NeanJcr, I I I I SEC. 1.J OF FREE 'VILL. 259 "\Ve now come to the period of the Refornlation. The doctrine of merit de congruo gave the greatest possible offence to Luther, and caned forth much of his strongest language. For example, in his treatise on the Bondage of the rVill he asserted, that, 'in his actings towards God, in things pertaining to salvation or damna- 60n, man has no free will, but is the captive, the snbject and the servant, either of the will of God, or of the \vill of Satan: 1 Again, , If we believ'e, that God foreknows and predestinates everything . . . . . it fol1ows, that there can be no such thing as free will in man or angel, or any creature.' 2 These expressions are charac- teristic of the vehemence of Luther's temper, when opposing what he considered a dangerous error, and are much stronger than the opinions subsequently expressed by birn, and very different from the language of felancthon and the confessions of the Lutheran Churches. In the Council of Trent the Lutheran opinions on this doctrine ,vere set forth to be discussed. :ßluch was said on both sides of the question. The Franciscans, as being foHowers of Scot us, spoke much for the absolute freedom of the will, and in favour of the doctrine of merit de conf/í"'tto. The Don1Ïnicans, after St. Thomas Aquinas, repudiated the idea of congruous merit, and maiutained the inability of man to tu:rn to gooL1 of his own \viII, since the fall of Adam. The decrees were dra.wn up so as to displease either party as little as possible, but with a leaning to the Franciscan doctrines. Those were condemned, \vho said, that' since the sin of Adan1 free will is lost,' and that 'bad as well as good ,vorks are done by the working of G-oò.' Yet, at the same time, those were anathen1atized, who said that 'a man could be justified ,vitbout grace,' that 'grace is given to live well 'with greater facility, and to merit eternal life, as if free will could do it though with more difficulty; , and ,vho said that 'a man mar believe, love, hope, or repent, without the prevention or assistance of the Holy Spirit.' 3 In the earlier days of the Reformation, tbe Lutherans generally Vol. VIII. pp. 230, 23 I. X eander points out the marked distinction between the doctrine of mprit de con!lrllO, as held by Aquinas, and the ame doctrine. as held by Alexander of Hales and ;the }--'ran- ciscans. 1 Cætcrnm erga. Denm, vel in rebu qUID pertinent ad Ralutem vel damnationem, Ilon habt:'tlibernm arbitrimn, sed captivus, subjectus ct senns est vel voluntatis Dei, vel voluntatis Satanæ.-De Sen'o A1,bi- trio, Opp. Tom. I. p. 43 2 . 2 Si enim credimu.. vernm esse, qno(l Deus præ cit et præordinat omnia, turn neque falli neque impediri potest sua præscientia et prædestinatione, deindp nihil fieri nisi ip o volente, id quod ip!':a ratio cogitur cOllc!-'dere, sim1l1 ipsa ratiolle teste, nullum potest esse liberum arbitrium in homine vel angelo, aut ulla creatnra.- Id. p. 481. 3 Sarpi, pp. 134, 21':>; Heylin, HL'i- t01'ia QuiTl'lua'rtic1lla1'is, ParI; I. ch. i v. s 2 260 OF FREE \VILL. [AUT. X. held extrel11e language on the slavery of the will, and Ielancthon himself used expressions \vhich he afterwards withdre\v. rrhe n10re lnatured convictions of this great ,vriter \vere sober and wise; and the Confession of Augsburg, whilst affirming that the will of man 'hath not the power to effect the righteousness of God \vithout the Spirit of God,' 1 yet declares, that 'the cause of sin is the will of wicked beings, viz., the devil and ungodly l11en, which \vhen not aided by God, turns itself from God, as it is \vritten, "\Vhen he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of himself.' 2 The Calvinistic refonners do not hesitate to use the nlost ex- tren1e expressions on the inability of man to do anything but eviL ,rrhe u1Índ of ulan,' says Calvin, , is so wholly alienated from God, that it can conceive, desire, and effect nothillg Lut wbat is impious, perverted, foul, ilnpure, and flagitious; the heart is so steeped in the venonl of sin that it can breathe forth nothing but fetid cor- ruption.' 3 The followers of Calvin have, for the most part, used language sin1Ìlar to their leader. "'\Vhether Calvin allowed to Adam free \vill in raradise, or believed that even his faU was predestinated, has been 111atter of dispute. Of the Calvinistic divines, those called Supralapsarialls held, as has been 1nentioned before, that God fore- ordained that Adam should sin, and therefore denied to hinl free will even in a state of innocence. rrhe Sublapsarians held, that he fell of his own will, and not b)T constraint or through the ordina- tion of God. Anlong the bodies of Christians ,vLo embraced the Calvinistic doctrines and discipline, some of the IDOSt considerable 'were the Churches of Holland and Belgiu1l1. The Belgic Confession, put forth in the year I 567, contains explicit declarations, that all things in the ,varld must happen according to the absolute decree and ordination of God, though God WD.S not to be called the author of sin, nor to be blamed for its exi tence.4 Seyeral divines of the Belgic Church had demurred to these doctrines; and at the end of 1 :K on habet vim ine t;piritn Sando efficielldæ ju::.titiæ Dei, seu justitiæ Epiri- tnalis, quia a})ill1ali homo Bull percipit ea. qnæ sunt Spiritus DeL-Art XYII.: S!!l- 'Dye, p. 129. 2 Art. XIX. De causa peccati d0ct'nt, quod tametsi Deus creat et conservat llaturam, tamen causa peccati est voluntas malorum videlicet diaboli et impiormn, quæ nOI1 adju\-ante Deo avertit se a Deo, sicut Christus ait J oh. viii., Cum loquitur llwndacium, ex spipso loquitur. - 8!!1l. p. 13 0 . 3 Stet ergo nobis indubia ista Yerita , quæ nullis machinamentis quatefieri po- I test, melltE:ll1 hominis ic aliellatam pror- SUS a Dei justitia, ut nihil non impium, conturtum, fædum, impurum, flagitiosum concipiat, concl1piscat, moliatur : cor pec- ca.ti veneno ita penitus delibutum, ut nihil quam curruptmfl fætorem efflare queat.- Calvo Institut. Lib. II. cap. v. 19. 4 Confess. Belgica, Sylloge: p. 234. SEC. 1.J OF FREE 'VILL. 261 the sixteenth and tbe beginning of the seventeenth century, Jacob Van Harnlin, or Arminius, a pastor of Amsterdam, broached the sentiments generaIly known by the name of Arrninianism. He dying in 1609, and his followers being persecuted by the dominant party, they addressed, in 16 I 0, a RerrwnstTancc to the States of Hol- land, \vhence they were called Re'n onstTants. Their sentiments on the subject of free will mar be gathered froln the third and fourth of the five articles, to which the .Ânninian doctrines were reduced. 'fhe third article sa,s that , 'man cannot attain to savina faith 0 of his own free will, in regard that, living in an estate of sin and defection from God, he is not able of himself to think, will, or do anything which is really good.' The fourth article rnns thus: , The grace of Goel is the beginning, promotion, and acconlplish- ment of everything that is good in us; insonluch that the rege- nerate man can neither think, win, nor do anything that is good, nor resist any sinful temptations without this grace preventing, co-operating, and assi ting; and, consequently, all good works, \vhich any lnan can attain to, are to be attributed to the grace of God in Christ. But as for the manner of the co-operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; for it is said of many in Scripture, that they did resist the Holy Ghost, as in Acts vii. and n1any other places.' 1 The disputes between the Remonstrants and their opponents led to the calling a Synod at Dort, or Dordrecht, at \vhich depu- ties were present from TI10st of the Protestant Churches of Europe. At this the Arminians \vere excomnlunicated, and the doctrines of the Swiss and Belgic TIeforn1ed Churches declar d to be decidedly Calvinistic, and intolerant of the opposite opinions. 2 Both electio'n and 'reprobation are declared to be of God alone; 3 but, at the Sallle tinle, it is affirmec1 that God is not to be considered as the author of sin; 4 nor is it to be said that He works on men as logs or stocks, but rather by giving life and energy to th ir wills. 5 The decrees of the Synod are indeec1 generally esteenlec1. decidedly Supralapsarian, and were unsatisfactory to the English divines \vho were present during some of their discussions; 6 but their language seenlS less exaggerated than sonle, \vho were opposed to them, have been inclined to represen tit. 7 1 Heylin, /list. Qllinq. Pa.rt I. ch. v. ; :Mosheim, Becl. Hi:.;t. Cent. XVII. Sect. II. Part II. 2 Heylin and Iosheim, as above. 3 Sylloge, p. 406, A-rt. VI. -& Ibid. p. -1-09, Art. xv. 5 Ibid. p. 431, Art. XVI. 6 8t>e Bp. Hall'i'; Observations on some Specialities in his Life. 1 See, for example, Heylin, II. Q. Part I. ch. VI. 262 OF FREE \VILL. [ RT. x. rhe Church of ROIne, after the Council of Trent, was not exempt from the same controversies which divided the Protestants on grace and free "Til1. folina, a Jesuit, professor at Ebara, in Portugal, in 1588 published a book entitled Liberi arb'ít1'ii con- cOl'dia CU1n Gratiæ doni.s, Di.vina P1'æscientia, pJ'æcZcstinationc, et Repl'obal'ione. His theory was SOlllew hat inlÌlar to that of the Arminians, 'who taught that grace ,vas given, according as God foresees that Inan would embrace and make good use of it. "The Don1Ínicans were 111uch offended at tLrs work, and accused the Jesuits of reviving Pelagianism. This led to a long and violent contention bet\veen the two orders, \vhich caused Clement VIII. to appoint a sort of council, called the Cc>ngregation de .!..uxiliis. 1 The death of Clenlent VIII. before the settlelDent of these disputes did not prevent their continuance under his successor, Paul \T. .... ud though Paul did not publicly declare for either side of the question, it is probable that he urged both parties to moderation, being deterred from pronouncing against tbe Jesuits by the patronage extended to them by the Court of France, and fronl deciding against the Dominicans by the protection of the Court of Bpain. 2 The controversy, hashed for a time, broke out again in the year 1640, in consequence of the writings of Jansenius, Bishop of. Ypres, \vho revived the doctrines of Augustine, in his book entitled .....4ugustiu1ls. I-lis followers were called J ansenists, and were strongly opposed by the Jesuits; the former nta.intaining the sentinlents held by .Augustine, Thonlas Aquinas, and the Domini- cans, the latter holding those of Duns Scotus and the Franciscans. The book of J ansenius was first condenlned as a breach of the concord \vhicb had been enjoined in the Church, but ,vas after- \vards n10re distinctly prohibited by a soienin bull of l)ope Urban VIII., A.D. 1642. The J ansenists, howe\Ter, continued to prosper, numbering n1any able and pious nlfh in their ranks, and appealing to miracles in support of their opinions. But ultÜnately they ,vere conàelnneç. and persecuted by the Bishops of ROlne and the dominant faction of the Church. 3 Before concluding this sketch of the different controversies in other countries, we must mention the Socin an opinions on free \vill; which, of course, correspond ,vith their vie,vs of original sin; as they appear to consider, that ruan's will is so far free and 1 l\Iosheim. Cent. XVI. Sect. III. Part I. :.: Ibid. Cent. XYII. Sec. II. Part 1. S 35. 3 ibid. Cent. XVII. Sec. II. Part I. S 40. I / I I , SEC. 1.J OIi' FREE \"ILL. 263 strong as to need ouly external, and not internal help towards his sanctification.! ...t\..fter the Reformation, or during the t'stablishnlent of it in Ell-gland, tbe first thing which particulårly claims our attention is the .Article of Pree "\Vill in the J.Yecessal'!J Doct1'íne, ::;et forth by King Henry 'TIll., and signed by Convocation, Ä.D. 1543. In this it is said, that' luan ha free will now after the fall of t\daln : ' and free will is defined, as a 'power of reason and will, by ,vhich good is chosen by the assistance of grace, or evil is chosen without the assistance of the same.' The refornlers in the reign of Edward VI. apre r to have fol- lowed closely upon the steps of the Lutherans ( Ielancthon and the Confession of -\.ugsburg), in the ..Articles which concern gract' and free will. 3 The Article on fi'ee will, ill the forty-two ...t\..rticles of I 5 52, was immediately succeeded by an -\.rticle on grace, which was worded as follows: 'OF GRACE. 'The grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost by Hiln giyen, doth take away the stony heart and giyeth an heart of flesh. .....t\.nd although those, who have no \viH to good things, He nlaketh thenl will, and those, that would eyi] things, He nlaketh them not to will: yet nevertheless He enforceth not the will. And therefore no man when he sinneth, can excuse himself as not worthy to be blamed or condelnned, by alleging that he sinned un willingly or by compulsion.' During the 1tlarian persecution the English Divines, who fled to Frankfort and other places on the Continent, by being thrown into contact with foreign reformers, were drawn into the contro- versies which agitated them. Iany can1e back with strong pre- judices in favour of the Calvinists, whilst others \vere strongly disposed to maintain Lutheran views. There \vere therefore three distinct parties in the Church in the earl)'" part of the reign of Elizabeth. Sonle ,vere for the restoration of popery; others in- clined to Lutheran views of grace al1( of the Sacraments; and a third party had imbibed Calvinistic sentiments of prede:stination and church discipline, and Zuinglian sentinlellts on sacramental g['ace. The last were the forerunners of the l')uritans, who soon hecame non-conformists, and finally dissenters. They acquired the name of Gospellers, and called their opponents Free\Viller . 1 :\Iosh im. Cent. XVI. Sect. Ill. Part II. 17. 2 Form/ulul'ies of Faith in the Reign of Hcm'y VI) 1. p. 359, where see the Artic1 on :Fl'ee \Vill at length. 3 ee Laurence, B.L. pl1ðÛm, espt:ciall,)' S nJlOll v. 264 OF .FREE \VILL. [ART. X. Archbishop Parker and the leading men of the day wisely strove to heal the divisions, and soften down the language of our for- n1tllaries, so as to include as many as possibl within the pale of the National Church: and anlong other measures of conciliation the ..Article on OJ'aloe was omitted to satisfy the Calyinistic section of th e Ch urch. 1 The controversies, however, bet\veen the High Church and the Puritan divines, búth on .points of doctrine and of discipline, con- tinued to divide the Church. "\Vhitgift, Archbishop of Canter- bury, in doctrine agreed with Calvin, but in discipline ,vas a high Episcopalian. During his prinlacy ,vere dra,vn up the famous Lam beth Articles, ,vhich he would gladly bave imposed on the Church, but which never received tbe authority of the queen, the parlialllent, or the convocation. The first of the Articles says, that 'God hath from eternity predestinated sonle nlen to life, others He hath reprobated to death: ' and the ninth asserts that 'it is not in the will or power of everyone to be saved.' 2 In the conference held at Hampton Court in the reign of l{ing ,J alnes I., A.D. 1603, an effort was made on the part of the Puritan divines to obtain an alteration in some of the XXXIX. Articles, and to have them 111ac1e more conforlnable to Calvinistic language; but no alteration was effected, owing to the opposition of the l{ing and of the Bishops to the argulnents of the Puritans. 3 The Articles remain therefore as they \yere put forth in 1562, and afterwards in 157 I. .And those on the subject of grace, free will, and other sin1Ïlar subjects, are the sanle as those dra\vn up in I 5 52, by CrannIer and his fello\vs, with the exception of the omission of the Article on Grace, \vhich was then the tenth Article, and the prefixing of the first part of the present tenth (originally the ninth Article) down to the word ',vherefore.' There have been, ever since tbe reign of Elizabeth, tw'o parties in the English Church, one holdillg the doctrines of Calvin, and the other opposing those doctrines, and each party has considered the Articles to speak its own language. It. is however an un- doubted truth, that the Articles were drawn up before Calvin's works had become extensively known, or had become in any degree popular in this country. It is probable that they speak the lan- guage neither of Calvin nor of Arn1inius; and between the 1 Heylin's II. Q. Part III. ch. XVII. On the state of partieR, &c., in Elizabeth's reign, see Soames' El izabetltan. Relí9íou '3 History. 2 Heylin's H. Q. Part III. ch. XX. 3 Heylin, Part III. ch. XXII. ; Card- well's History of Confe1'enees, p. 178. &c. SEC. I I.] OJ!"' FREE 'VILL. 265 extreme opinions, which have prevailed among the schoolnlen and. others, they held a middle course, carefully avoiding the doglna of congruous merit, nlaintaining jealously the absolute necessity of preventing grace to enable us to will or to do according to the commandments of God, but not minutely entering into the ques- tions concerning the freedom of man before the fa11, or the degree of free agency left to him since the fall. SECTIOX IT.-SCRIPTURAL rl{OOF. T HE ninth Article having asserted that man by the fall is ' verv far gone from original righteousness,' there arises at once a probability that he is weak and helpless towards good. In rea- soning, therefore, on th;t A rticle, it was natural in some degree to anticipate some of the conclusions of this. Yet still, unless it be clearly conceded, that, by the fall, Ulnn became total! y corrupt, with no shadow of the image of God in which he was created, and with a mind nearly approaching, if not actually similar, to the mind of ùevils; it would be possible, that such a degree of strength might remain to hinl, that he might make some independent efforts towards holiness, and in sonle degree prepare hi111self for the reception of grace. As therefore the ninth Article does not define the exact anlount of man's defection from original righteousness, it was quite necessary to state the doctrine of his utter helplessness in this. The subject, as it is stated in the .L\rtic1e, seems to divide itself into the two following heads. 1. Since the fall, nlan ha3 no power by his O\VU natural strength to turn himself to faith and godliness, or to do good works acceptable to God. But the grace of God is absolutely necessary to enable him to do this. II. The grace of God acts in two ,vays. I. First, it is preventing grace, giving a good will. 2. Afterwards, it is co-opprating grace, \vorking in and wit h us, when we have that good will. 1. First, then, since the fall, man has no power by his own natural strength to turn hinlself to faith and holiness, or to do 266 OF FREE WILL [ÅRT. X. good \vorks acceptable to God. But the grace of God is abso lutely necessary to enable hinl to do this. Here the point to be proved is simply this. \Vhatever degree of defection is implied in the fall, whatever natural amiability any individuals of the hun1an race 111ay possess; no one, by mere natural strength, and without internal help from God, can believe or do 'what is, in a religious point of view., pleasing or acceptable to God. I. In the sixth chapter of St. John uur Lora says, ' o luan can come unto le, except the Father .which hath sent 1fe dra,v him' (ver. 44); and again, 'Therefore said I unto you, no luan ean corne unto :1\1e, except it were given him of )Iy Father' ( Yer. 65). Now here the proposition is quite general. All lllankind are included in the sentenct:', 'No luan can conle ' to Christ, except it be given hin1 of God, except God the Fa.ther draw him. f).:'his is a plain statement of natural 'weakness, and of the need of prevent- ing grace. It shows, that by nature Ulan is apart from Christ, and that only the gift of God and the drawing of God can bring him to Christ. rro tbis argument the Pelagialls answer, that 110 doubt it is necessary, that God should draw us, if \ve are to come to him; but the ,vay, in which He draws us, is not by internal assistance and the motions of His Spirit in onr hearts, but externally, by the calls of His word, tbe ,varnings of l-I is Providence, the ordinances of His Church. Thus, therefore, say they, He nlay be said to d raw us, and thus it is given us of Hill1 to come to Christ. But ,ve may reply to this objection. that such au interpretation is jnconsistent with the ,vhole drift of our Lord's discourse. The Capharllaite J e,vs, ,vho heard IIitu, \vere staggered at His sayings, and disbelieved theIne Externally, the ,vord of God ,vas drawing them then, but they luunnurec1 against it, and refused to listen to it. Accordingly our Lord tells them, that it was froln an absence of inl{;(tl'd sanctification, that they rejected the outwarll calls of I:Iis word. If they came to Him, it Blust be by the drawing of the Father, through the grace of His Spirit; for, says lIe, , No Ulan can COlne unto 1\le, except the Pather, ,vhich hath sent le, draw him; and I will raise hÏIn up at the last day. .A.s it is ,vritten in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and that hath learned of the }-'ather, cOlneth unto ]\fe' (vv. 44, 45). If by these ,vords is 111eant only the out,vard dra\ving by external nleans, it is plain, that all ,vho heard I I I j I EC. II. ] OF FREE "-ILL. 2G7 ] Iirn had such drawing in its most efficient form; yet Dlost of them rejected him. It is evident that they lacked something more than this. That being taught of God, that learning of the Father, \vhich would bring them to Christ, must therefore have been sonle- t.hing within them, not the calls of His word ,vithout; and hence \ve lllay conclude that our Lord's words sho\v it to be an invari- aùle rule, a truth coextensive with the nature of fallen man, that 110 one can COllle to Christ, or, ,,,,hat is the same thing, turn and prepare hitnself to faith and calling upon God, without the internal uperation s of the Spirit of God. 2. To confirm this v-iew of the subject, let us recur to what \ve saw, in considering the ninth ...\rticle, was the doctrine of Scrip- ture concerning our original corruption. Our Lord states (John viii. 34), that, 'whosoever committeth sin is the servant (ðOûÌ\.oS', the sZat.c) of sin.' K ow all men by nature cOlnmit sin, and therefore are slaves of sin. This is what St. l)aul calls 'the bondage of corruption' (Rom. viii. 2 I). This natural f'ta.te of man is, both by our Lord and by the A.postle, contrasted with the liberty of the soul under a state of grace. ' If the Son sha.ll make you free, ye shall be free indeed' (John viii. 36), says Christ; and St. Paul calls it the glorious liberty of the children of God' (RollJ. viii. 2 I ). In like manner our Lord distinguishes be- tween the state of a servant and the state of a son (John viii. 35). ay, so complete is this servitude of sin by nature, that St. Paul, lIlore than once, calls it death. He speaks of people as by nature 'dead in trespasses and sins' (Epbes. ii. I; Co1. ii. 13). He says of those, who had been delivered froln this state by grace, that' God had Ç1u1..clæned thenl together with Christ' (Epbes. ii. 5); that those who ,vere baptized into the death of Christ, having been dead in trespasses and sins, God had' quickened together with HÏIn' (Col. ii. 12, 13). Now slavery and death are the strongest terms to express utter helplessness, tbat language adll1its of. So, freeing from slavery and quickening or raising to life, as plainly as possible, indicate a free gift, independent of the will or po\ver of the re- cipient, and show that the recipient lllust previously have been in a. condition, as unable to free himself as the bondsman, as unable tù quicken himself as a dead man. In accordance with aU this, St. Paul (in Rom. vii. viii., a pas- age considered in the last .A..rtic1e) argues at length, that man, Leing by nature' carnal, sold under sin,' even if able to admire what is good, was utterly unable to perform it (Rom. vii. 14-2 I), there being a law, ruling in his members, which makes him captive 268 OF FREE WILL. [ART. X. to the la,v of sin (ver. 23). .A.nd then he tells us that the ,yay, in which this bondage nlust be broken, is by the Spirit of God taking possession of, and ruling in that heart, in ,vhich before sin had ruled, and so delivering it from the law of sin. ' For the la\v of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath 111ade me free ffonl the law of sin and death' (viii. 2). Not only is such helplessness of the unregenerate nlan plainly taught by our Lord and His Apostles; but ,ve further find that the very n1Índ and understanding are represented as darkened by the natural state of corruption, and so incapable of comprehending and appreciating spiritual truth, until enlightened by the Spirit of God. Thus, 'the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; . . . neither can he know them, because they are spiri- tually discerned' (I Cor. ii. 14, compo Ronl. viii. 5,6,7; Jude 19). J\Ian by nature has no discernment of those things ,vhich belong to the Spirit of God; and if so, it is quite clear that., if he ever attains to spiritual discernment, it must be given him preter- naturally. To this belong all the passages concerning the new birth; for if a ne,v birth be necessary, there III ust, before it, be an absence of that life, which is the product of such a birth. Accordingly, God is represented as begetting us of His own will (James i. 18). To enter into the killgdolll a lnan must be b rn again, of water, and of the SpÍ?"it (John iii 3, 5). In Christ Jesus a ne\V creation availeth (Ga1. vi. 15). It is not by works of righteousness which \ve have done, but according to IIis o\vn mercy that God saveth ns, by the \vashing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit. iii. 5). In like manner, the Scriptures, ,vhen speaking of the good 'works of Christians, represent thenl as due, not to any independent effort of the hU111al1 will, but altogether to the grace of God working in them. rrhus our Lord, in a. parable, fully declares the whole source and spring of Christian holiness to be the life and virt.ne derived frOID Him. He likens Himself to a Vine, and all His disciples to branches. vVe know that branches of a tree derive life and strength froln the sap, which is sent into them from tbe root and stenl. In like manner onr Lord tells us, that, by being branches of Him, we may bring forth good fruit, but that, apart from Him, we can do nothing. 'Abide in :ßle, and I in you. .....\s the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine: no more can ye, except ye abide in 1\1e. I anI the Vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in l\Ie, and I in hinl, the saine SEC. I.] OF FREE " ILL. 269 ùringeth forth much fruit; for without 'le (xwpcr; ifJ-Oû, apart from 1\le) ye can do nothing , (John xv. 4, 5). So constantly is this dependence of the Christian upon Divine grace urged by the sacred ,vriters, that they frequently call to our remenl brance, not only that we owe our first turning from evil to the quickening of God's spirit, but that even the regenerate and the faithful believer is at every step dependent upon the illumina- tion, guidance, strength, and support of the same Divine Comforter and Guide. So St. Paul, 'writing of himself and other regenerate Christians, ays, 'K ot that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is of God' (2 Cor. iii. 5). 'Yhen urging his faithful converts to 'work out their o,vn salyation ,yith fear and trembling,' he adds as an encouragement to them, 'For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure' (Phil. ii. 13). And when speaking with tbankfulness of the labours, which he himself had been enabled to undergo for the sake of the Gospel, he adds, , Yet not I, but the grace of God ,vhich was with me' (I Cor. xv. 10). N o,v all this language of Scripture seems plainly to prove, that l)y nature Dlan has no free will to do good, no po,ver to Il1ake in- dependent efforts towards holiness. There is an iron tyranny, a la,y of sin and death, which keeps him in bondage and deprives him of the power to escape, and even of the discernment of spiritual things which 'would make him desire deliverance. Froll1 this la,v of sin and death the Spirit of life can set him free; from this bondage the Son can nlake hilTI free indeed; but none besides. X ay! he is sleeping the :sleep of spiritual death, and therefore needs internal, as well as external aid to rouse hin1; aye! a new creation, a new birth, a new life. .And even when set free, quick- ened, regenerate, he continues still able to act and think uprightly, only so long as he derives strength fronl Christ: just as the branch can bear no fruit, except it derive sap and strength from the stem on which it grows. IT. It being thus proved, that by nature mán, corrupted by the fall, is not in po session of free will: or more properly, that his will, though unconstrained by God, is yet warped and led captive by evil spirits and his own bad propensities; it remains that we consider the effects of God's grace upon the will, when setting it free from this captivity. The ..L\..rticle describes these effects as follows: I. God's grace prevents us, that 'we n1ay have a good ".ill. 2. It works in us, or with us, when we have that good will. 270 OF FUEE ""ILL. [ART. X. The passages of Scripture, which have been already brought to bear in the former division of the subject, nlay appear to have sufficiently demonstrated these two propositions. I. The necessity of preventing grace follows, of course, fronl the doctrine that nlan, of himself: cannot turn to God. For, if he cannot turn of himself, he must either renlain for e\"er alienated. or must need some power to turn him. In the language of the prophet, 'Turn Thou me, and I shall be turned' (.J ere xxxi. I 8). Accordingly, we read continua1]y of the first turlling of the hea.rt as coming from God. God is said to he 'found of them that sought Him not, and nlade manifest to then1 that asked not after Hiln' (Isai.lxv. I; Rom. x. 20). vVe read of His opening people's 'hearts so that they attend to the things spoken' (Acts xv-i. 14): and 've are taught, that He '"orketh in us both to 'lei!! and to do' (Phil. ii. 13); so that the regenerate and sanctified Christian is declared to be God's 'woTk1Î anship creat.ed in Christ Jesus unto good ,vorks' (Eph. ii. 10). God is said to ha\e ' wrought' b(\- lievers for immortality and glory (2 Cor. 'Y. 5). The' new n1an' is said to be 'created in righteousness and true holiness' (Eph. iv. 24). Such passages, and all others which spenk of new birth and new creation, show plainly, that God's grace prevents us, ,vaits not, that is, for us to make advanees to Him, but graciously COUles for- ward to help us, whilst yet we are without strength. They show too that, 'whereas by nnture the "ill was .corrupt and not tending to God, bound down and taken captive b the law' of sin, so when the grace of God rene\ys it, it is no longer in slavery, but free, choosing life and holiness, not by compulsion, but by free choice and love. 'The Son makes us free indeed' (John viii. 3 6 ). 'The law of the Spirit of life makes us free from the In-w of sin anò death' (Rom. viii. 2). There is a ' glorious liberty for the children of God' (Rom. viii. 2 I). It is 'to liberty' that we 'have been called' (Ga1. v. 13); for' "kere the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty' (2 Cor. iii. I 7). We see then the contrast, which exists bet\yeen the will in. its natural corrupt'state, and the will in its regenerate and purified state. In the former it is enslaved; in the latter it is free. Satan keeps it a bondslave in the first; God sets it free in the last. Then it could only choose evil; now it is free to choose good. Then under the law of sin and death; now under 'the perfect law of liberty' (James i. 25). 2. But the will, thus set free, needs further support, guid- ance, and strength. The newborn Christian has still a conflict to SEC.!.] OF FRI':E \YILL. ,;"1 undergo, for \vhich he requires the whole annour of God. Thi is expressed in the .i:\rticle, by the \vords ' working with us when ,ve have that good will.' The Latin Article has the word cuöpe1Ytnfp, which in the first English translation ,"vas rendered ' working in us;' but in I 572 it was expressed sonlewhat more closely after the Latin, C working 'l,--,ith ns.' Such expressions of course imply that, when the ","ill is re- newed, there is need of further grace to support it, but, at the same time, that the renewed man is to exert hiulself in the strength of that grace, and to \York under its influence. The doctrine of co-operation has been opposed by many as assigning too much strength to man. ::\Ian, they say, is altogether too weak either to begin the work of grace, or even, after that ,york is begun, to contribute anything to\vards its completion. It is patching the pure robe of C hrist's righteousn ss to add any of the filtby rags of man's works to it. Accordingly, St. Paul attributes all his own labours, not to himself, but to 'the grace of God which was ,vith him' (I Cor. xv. 10); and says, ' I 110 longer live myself <(w () Ol;KÉTJ. Èy.w), but Chri t liveth in HIe' (Gal. ii. 20). And it is written, that las, 7) UVVfUfWS, 7} f.Ùufßd.as, 7} lp)'wv WV KaTHPîauápÆOa Èv OU'Ó77JTL Kapòlas' åÀÀà o,à TijS 7rlu- Tf.WS, ò,' s 7ráVTaS TOÙS à7r' alwJlos Ó 7raJlTOKpáTWp 8fÒS ÈÒLKaiwCTfv. . tUTW õó a ds TOÙS alwvas TWJI alwJlwv. J A P.T; 11. 2 Almost the only question which may be raised on the passage is, Does St. Clement contrast faith with works done before the grace of God, or works after the grace of God, i.e., evangelical work 1 Dr. W aterland sa 7s, ' It is of great weight with him, that so early and so consider- able a writer as Clement of Rome, an apostolical man, should RO interpret the doctrine of justifying faith, as to oppose it plainly even to evangelical work2, how- ever exalteil.' - Jr orl.:s, V 01. IX. p. 452. l\Ir. Faber thinks that 'Indisputably. by the very force and tenor of their definition (i. c., as being works done in holiness of heart), they are work8 perforrr.ed after the infusion of holiness into the heart by the gracions spirit of God.' -Primitive Doctrine of JU!;tijication, p." 83. New- man, on the other hand, contends, that, 'in holiness of heart' means no more than 'piously,' 'holily,' and that' works which we did in holineF:s of heart' (as the article is omitted bef(lre lp)'wv though not before the former E'ubstal1tives uo4>laç, fvufßdas, &c., and the verb KaTfL[YYD.uáp.fOa is in the aorist) won]d more naturally, though perhaps not necessarily, signify an hypo- thetical, not a real case, as in those words of St. Jerome afterwards quoted by Mr. Faber, p. 122, 'Convertentem impium per Bolam fidem justificat Deus, non per opera quæ non habuit.'-Newman, On Just7Jication, p. 436. SEC. 1.J OF THE .JUSTIFICATION OF 1.c\N. '277 bare onr sins in His own body on the tree; who did no sin, neither was guile found in His Inouth; but suffered all for us that we might live through Hinl.,l , For this cause did our Lord vouchsafe to give up His Body to destruction, that through the forgiveness of our sins we n1Ïght be sanctified; that is, by the sprinkling of Iris Blood.' 2 , By His stripes healing is conferred on all ,yho come to the Father by Iiinl.,3 , All lTIen fall short of the glory of God, and are justified not Ly themselves, but by the coming of thp Lord.' 4 , I ,vill not glory because I am righteous, but because I am redeemed. I will glory, not because' I anI free froDl sins, but because my sins are forgiven lue; not because 1 haye profited, nor because anyone hath profited nle, hut because Christ is lilY _\dvocate with the Father, and because Christ's Blood hath been shed for Ine.' 5 , Our righteousness . . . is such in this life, t.hat it consists rather in rernission of sins than in perfection of virtue.' 6 , Not to comrnit sin, is the righteousness of God; but lnan' righteousness consists in the mercy of God.' 7 Thus far it is plain, that the fathers believed \vhat the Scrip- tures taught and ,vhat the .L'trticle of our Church Jnaintains, that , we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works or de- servings.' And if anywhere they seem to speak a l nguage not strictly in accordance wit.h this doctrine; we ought in fairness to conclude, that they do not mean real1y to contradict thenlselves, though they speak broadly and as the Scriptures speak, concerning the necessity of that' holiness, without which no man shall see the- Lord.' But "when we come to technical ternls, and express defini- tions, we shal1 find considerable difficulty in a certaining the sense attached to them in the patristic writings. \Ve have already seen something like a distinct staten1ent in Clement of Rome: and something nearly approaching it lnay be found in those who fol- lowed him. A fe,v pxarnples I h'1ive thrown into tbe note. S Yet 1 Polycarp, hpÙ5i. VIII. :: Barnab. ,E'p. Y. 3 .Just. L Dial. p. 366. See also Bp. Kaye'8 Justin lllartyr, p. 77. -I Iren. IV. xxxvii. See also Beaven's Irenwlls, p. 194. .J Am bros. De Jacobo ct Jïta Bmt. I. 6. See Newman, On Just ricaticm, p. 4 0 I. 6 Augn t. De Civit. XIX. 27. See Cal vin, Instit1tt. III. 12. 7 K on peccare Dei est justitia; hominis a.utem justitia, Deiindulgentia.-Bernard, Sel7nor , 21 et 23 in Cantic. See Calvin) Institut. III. 12. See also Neander, VoL VIII. p. 218. 8 OÚ 'Yàp ÕÝ} )'f" dç ßaÀavfîov vp.âç l7rffJ.7rfV 'Ho-ataç å7roÀovo-op.Év,-,vç ÈKÚ ròv cþÓVOV KaL ràç ãÀÀa áp.apríaç, oðç oùõÈ rò TijÇ ÐaÀáo-(T'1J l.KaVÒV 7râv üðwp KaOapí(TaL. åÀ.À.à wç dKÒÇ 7ráÀ.aL rovro ÈKÛJlO rò (TWrÝ}pLOV À.ovrpòv 1]V, Ö f"L7rfrO roîç fJ.(ra )'LVÚ o-KOV(TL, Kat fJ.'1JKÉn a'íp.an 278 OF THE J USTIFICATIOK OF :MA1\. [A_RT. XI. it seems, on a general exalnination of the most remarkable passages from the ancient ,vritings on this subject, that it is extremely difficult to say, whether the fathers always understood the word 'justification' in a forensic sense, as signifying acquittal fronl guilt, and iInputation of righteousness, or rather, as, in addition to that, containing in it the notion of infusion of righteousness. It has already been observed, that we nlust not expect in their words the precision of controversy, 'v here no controversy had been raised. In order of tilDe, acquittal from guilt and infusion of righteousness (or what in modern Theology have been called justification and sanctification) go together, and are never separated. Therefore, though at tinles the fathers seem to use the term 'justification' Inerely in its forensic sense, yet sometin1es they speak .too, as if it included the idea of making just, as ,veIl as of esteeming just. For exal1)ple, in one place St. Ohrysostom (on Rom. viii. 33 : 'It is God that justifieth ; who is he that condemneth ?') writes: , He does not say, it is God that forgave our sins, but, what is luuch greater, It is God that iust'ljìcth. For 'v hen the Judge's sentence declares us just (ðlKalovç à7rocþalvEL), and such a Judge too, what signifieth the accuser?' 1 Here he seems to speak, as if he considered justification as 110 more than 'declaring or pro- nouncing j list.' Yet, in other parts of the same ,york, he c1early shows, that in justification he considered something more to be in- cluded than remission and acquittal.. Thus, in the Eighth Homily au Rom. iv. 7 (' Blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven,') ,ve read: 'fIe seems to be bringing a testimony beside his purpose. For it does not say, Blessed are they, whose faith is reckoned for righteousness. But he does so pnrposely, not inadvertently, to sho\v the greater excellence. For if he be blessed, that by grace Tpá)'wv Kat 7rPOßáTWV 1} CT7rOOciJ õa,uá.- ÀEW , 1} CTE}.LLOá.XfW 7rpO(J'(þopaL Ka(}apLSO- fJ.ÉVOV , åÀÀà 7rlCTTEL OLA TOÛ ar}.LaTO TOÛ XPU]'TOÛ, Kat TOÛ (}aváTOV aVTOÛ, Ô OLà TOÛTO å7rf8aVEV. K. T. X.-JHst. I. Dial. p. 229, d. Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus Abrahæ, cuius diem concupivit videre: sed neque Pater Domini; did.icerat enim a Verbo Domini, et credidit ei; qua propter et deputatum est ei ad justitiarn a Domino. Fides f'nim quæ est ad Deurn altissimum justificat hominem.-Irenæ. IV. 13. See also IV. 27. Hi!"; igitur cOllsideratis pertractatisque pro virilms quas Dominus donare dig- natur, colligimus non justificari hominem præceptis bonæ vitæ nisi per fidem .J esu Christi, hoc est non lege operum sed fidei non litera sed spiritu, non factorum meritis sed gratuita gratia.-August. De Spi'1'it.u et Litera, cap. 22. Convertentem impium per solam fidem justificat Deus, non opera bona quæ non habuit 1 alioquin per impietatis opera fuerat puniendus. Simnl attende, quia - non peccatorem dicit justifi'.;ari per fidem sed impium, hoc est, nuper credentem asserui t. Sec'ltndurn propositurn graUæ Dei. Qui proposuit gratis per solam fidem pec- cata dimittere.-Hieron.inEpist. ad Rom. cap. iv. Tom. v. pp. 937, 938. The Bene- dictine editors consider this commentary as not Jerome's. See al::;o in .bpist. ad Galat. cap. iii. 1 Ilomil. in Ep. ad Rom. xv. See also Horn. YII. on cbap. iii. 27. SEC. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF !AN. 279 receiveth forgiveness, much more he, that is made just and that manifests faith.' Again, IIomil. x. on Rom. v. 16, (' the free gift is of many offences unto justification,') he argues that 'it was not only that sins were done away, but that righteousness was given.' It is true that to be esteemed righteous is more than to be esteemed sinless; a'3 the one would only deliver from punishn19ut, the other give a right to reward; and so St. Chr)"'sostom may only mean that justification is more than pardon, because to be accounted righteous is more than to be acquitted of guilt. But it appears to have been COnl1110n to many of the fathers to leave in some uncertainty the question, whether justification did or did not contain in it the making that, of which it involved the imputation. This is especially observable in the works of St. ,A..ugustine. For exanlple, in the 45th chapter of the De Spirit'l!J et Litera, \vhere he is reasoning on the ,vords of St. Paul, 'the doers of the Law shall be justified' (Rom. ii. I 3), he asks, "Vhat is to be justified but to be made just by HiIll ,vho justifies the ungodly, so that from ungodly, he becomes just?' and so he concludes, that by this phrase St. Paul means 1 that 'they shall be made just, who before were not so, not ,vho before ,yere just; that so the Jews, who were hearers of the Law, might understand that they need the grace of a j Ilstifier that they might beconle doers of the La" .' Or else, he proposes to interpret it in the other way, 'shall be justified, as though it were said, shall be held and accounted righteous; just as it is said of a certain one, He 'willing to justIfy hirnseif, that is, to be held and esteemed just.' So then Augustine appears to leave it an open question, ,vhether to justify is to 'JJlake, or to estee1n and hold as righteous. Yet though there be such ambiguity, we need be but little solicitous on the subject; but rather conclude, that 'thp point having never been discussed, and those fathers never having thoroughly considered the sense of St. Paul, might unawares take the word (j ustify) as it sounded in the Latin, especially the sense they affixed to it signifying a matter very true and certain in Christianity.' 1 Dr. Waterland, in his treatise on Justification,2 has collected a great nunlber of passages from the fathers, to show that they considered every person at his baptism to receive the gift of justi- fication. Our limits will not allow us to follow him at length. But if we take justification to mean relnission of sin and adn1Ìssion into 1 Ba.rrow, VoL II. Sermrm v. On Justification by Faith. 2 'Vatt-rland's n"orks, Vol. IX. p. 44 2 . 280 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF l'IAS. [ART. XI. God's favour, it needs but very slight acquaintance with the \\Titings of the early Christians to kno\v, that as they confessed their faith 'in one baptism for the remission of sins,' so they universally taught, that all persons duly receiving baptisnl, and not hindering the grace of God by unbelief and impenitence, obtain in baptism pardon for sin, adn1Ïssion into the Christian Church and covenant, and the assistance of tbe Holy Spirit of God; and that so they are henceforth' children of God, melubers of Christ, and inheri- tors of the kingdom of heaven.' To sun1 up ,vhat has been said. In the essence of this Article the fathers' language is clear. ffhey held, that all hope of salva- tion must spring from the mercy of God through the merits of Christ. They taught that every person baptizel1 (not forfeiting the grace by sin and impenitence) was looked on as a member of the body of the faithful, and so in favour with God. They spoke too of faith, as that state of salvation, in ,vhich we receive justi- fication and life. But (if at least we nlake some exceptions) they do "not speak in the clear and controversial language of later days; nor is it always certain, whether by the wordiustificd they under- stand, that a man's faith is accounted to hill1 for righteousness, or that faith being the great sanctifying principle, it is the instru- ment w hereby God ,yorks in hilll holiness. It would be beside our purpose and exceed our limits to inves- tigate at length the definitions of the schoolmen. Learned discus- sions are liable to much misunderstanding. But the ilnpressions popularly conveyed by the teaching of the scholastic divines, and especially the vie\v which ,vas taken of them by Luther and their opponents, are very inlportant to our right apprehension of the controversy at the time of the Reformation. In the first place, it appears that the schoolmen generally Ull- derstood justification to mean not infusion of righteousness, but forgiveness of sins. It is true, they looked on it, as the Ï1nmediate result of, and as inseparably connected ,vith grace infused; but their definitions made justification to mean, not the making righteous, but the declaring righteous. It is not to be supposed, that they denied or doubted, that such 1 Primo quæritur, an justificatio impii bit relllissio peccatorum? Et videtur quod non. . . . Sed cont'ra est quod di- citur in Glossa Rom. viii. Super illud 'Quos vocavit, hos et justificavit.' Glo. re- missione peccatorum: ergo remissio pec- catornm est justificatio.-Aquinas, Quæs- tion. Dispute. quæst. 28. Art. I. quoted hy Laurence, Bamp. Lect. p. 119. Neander, Vol. VIII. p. 222, gives an interesting account of the scholastic dis- cussions on justification. His statement:i appear different from those in the text, but it is only so at first sight. SEC. 1.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF !\-IAN. 281 justification sprang primarily from the grace of God, and nlerito- riously from the death of Christ. The fault,s charged upon their system are, that they looked for merit de congruo, and de condigno, that they attached efficacy to attrition, that they inculcated the doctrine of satisfaction, and that they assigned grace to the Sacra- ments ex opere operato. Luther especially insists, that these scholastic opinions were directly subyersive of tbe doctrine of St. l)aul, and of the grace of God. 'They say,' he writes, 'that a good work before grace is able to obtain grace of congruity (which they call 1nel'iturn de conrj'rllo), because it is lneet that God should rcw'ard such a ,york. But ,vhen grace is obtained, the work followilJg deserveth eternal life of debt and worthiness, which they call .merit l1n de condi[Jnu. . . . For the first God is no debtor, but, because He is just and good, lIe nlust approve such good work, though it be done in nlortal sin, and so give grace for such service. But when grace is obtained, God is become a debtor, and is constrained of right and duty to give eternal life. For now it is not onl)7 a work of free will, done according to the substance, but also done in grace, which makes a man acceptable to God, that is to say, in charity.' , This is the divinity of the kingdom of antichrist; which here I recite, that St. Panrs argument nlay be the better understood; for two things contrary to one another being put together may be the better understood.' 1 Again, the conlpunction for sin, which might be felt before the grace of God was given, was called attrition; cornpnnction arising from the motions of God's Spirit being called contrition. Now attrition ,vas considered as a means, whereby God predisposed to grace. So that it had in it son1e rnel'it de CO'nYr'uo, and so of its own nature led to contrition and to justification. 2 There being some difficulty in knowing whether a man's repent- ance was cont1'ition or merely attrition, the Church was supposed to come to his aid .with the power of the keys. The sacrament of penance added to attrition, and wor1-s of satisfaction being enjoined, the conscience was to be stilled, though it might yet be uncertain, w"bether true repentance and lively f:Üth had really been attained. 3 1 Luther on Galatians ii. 16. 2 See Laurence, B. L. Lect. IV. and yr. Also notes on Lect. YI. The following IS one sentence from a long passage quoted by him, p. 32 I, from Scotus, Lib. IV. di:;t. IV. quæst. 2. 'Potest ergo dici quod Deus disponit per attritionem, in aliquo iustanti dare I gratiam: et pro ilia attritioue, ut pro merito, justificat, sicut est meritum justi- ficationis. Etlicet non continuareturidem actus circa peccatum in genere natllræ et moris, qui prius, adhuc in illo instanti infunderetur gratia, qui jam præcepit meritum de congruo.' :I Laurencp, as above, and p. 3 20 . C) 8 0 - ..../ OF THE JUSTIFICATIO OF IAN. [ART. XI. Once more, the doctrine, that the Sacraments worked grace and so effected justification independently of the faith of the receiver, and merely ex opere operato, ,vas by the reformers charged upon the schoolrnen as overthrowing the doctrine of justification, through faith, by the merits of Christ. l And at last when by attrition per- fected by penance, satisfaction, and absolution, and through the grace of God passing into contrition, the sinner ,vas believed to be pardoned, and his soul justified before God, it still remained a question, whether there ,vas not a certain amount of temporal punishment to be endured in this life perhaps, but lllore probably in purgatory, before the soul could be received into full favour with God, and be pronounced 'not guilty' in I--lis presence. The abuses, which prevailed at the time of the Reformation connected with the above doctrines, are popularly known. Hence, especial1y, the merit attached to pilgrimages, and other ,vorks of satisfaction, which \vere thought capable of averting the temporal punishments yet due to sin; although, of course, eternal punish- n1ent could be averted only by the merits of Christ. Hence, too, the falTIOUS sale of indulgences, which first prornpted I.Juther to take the steps which led rapidly to his breach \vith the See of Rome. It is possible, that much of the teaching of the school men, and of the rnore learned and pious of the divines of the l\fiddle Ages, ll]ay, when fairly interpreted, admit of a sense far more innocent than ,ve are apt to attribute to it, and might, if confined to the schools, have produced comparatively little mischief. But the effect produced upon the popular mind w s evidently noxious. Nothing can be more plain than the fact, that reformers, in all countries, felt that the great evil, a.gainst which they had to fight, ,vas the general belief, that man could n1erit God's favour by good deeds of his o\vn, and that works of mercy, charity, and self-denial, procured (through the intercession of Christ, or perhaps of the 'Tirgin 1\Iary) pardon for sin and acceptance with God. It was in opposition to all this, that Luther so strongly pro- pounded his doctrine of 'justification by faith only.' He saw the extreme importance of teaching men to acknowledge their own ,veakness, and to rely on the Atonement, 'as a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the \vhole \vorld.' Salvation was to be ascribed to grace, not to be claimed as a right; and with the view of effectually destroying all hope from claims, he adopted the language of St. Paul, and put forth in its strongest possible 1 Laurence, p. 3 2 4. SEC. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATIOS OF }fAN. 283 forIH, as the ærtículns stantis aut cadcntis ecclesia;, the statement that' justification is by faith only,' without works, love, or holiness. rrhat is to say, he asserted that nlan is justified through, or because of the merits of Christ, and that t.he sole instrument of his justi- fication is faith. This faith indeed win produce charity, and so good works: but, \vhen considered as justifying, it 111Ust be con- sidered as apart fronl holiness, and charity, and good works. The vehelnence of his temper, and the great importance which he attached to his doctrine, led hinl to state it in language .which we may not approve. Such language, if used no\v, ,,,hen very different errors prevail from those most comnJon in Luther's time, might, in all probability, lead to Antinon1Ïanisnl and fanaticism of all kinds. But it is necessary to put ourselves into Luther's position, and to take a fair vie\v of the man whose energy brought about the greatest revolution in Enropean history, in order to judge justly of his language and opinions. For example, Luther stated, that faith alone, not faith inforlueù or perfected by charity, was that which justified. This seems oppo ec1 to the language of St. Janles (ch. ii. 14, &c.), and even to the language of St. Paul, \vho tells us, that it is 'faith, which worketh by love,' which 'availeth in Christ Jesus' (Gal. v. 6). Accordjngly, the school men had distinguished betweenfidesinforrtìis, a faith which was merely speculative,. and had in it neither lo\"e nor holiness, and fides .107'YJu'tla., or faith which is perfected by the charity and good works which spring frOlH it; to which faith they attributed the office of j nstifying? Now this statelnent that it is fides f07'mata ,vhich justifies, Luther denied. By so doing it will be thought by many, that he contradicted Scripture, the fathers, the hon1Ïlies of our own Church, and the sentiments of n1any con- temporary reformers. But the ground, on ,vhich he did so, he himself clearly explains to us. 'fhe f::choolmen and Romanist divines, according to hin1, taught, that faith, furnished with charity, justified the sinner, in order that they 111Ìght assign the office of justification, not to the faith, but to the charity; that so it Illight be said, Faith justifies indeed; but it is because of the merit of that charity, and of those good works \vhich it. contains, and ,vhich give it all its efficacy. ' Faith,' he says, is, according to them, , the body a.nd the shell; charity the life, the kernel, the form, and 1 On thi ('holastic distinction see Cal- vin, In8tit. Lib. II. c. II. 8. Also N e- ander, VoL VIII. 220, 221. Calvin him- self d nies the justice of the distinction on thi8 ground :. Fides in Chrbti llotitia sita est. Christus nisi cum Spiritus sui sanctificatione cognosci nequit. Conse- quitur fidem a pio affectu nullo modo es e distrahendalll. A verydifferent argument from Luther's. 284 OF THE JGSTIFICATION O.F fAN. [ lRT. XI. furniture.' 'But we,' he contin nes, , in the stead of this charity, put faith, and we say, that faith apprehends Jesus Christ, who is the forn1 which adorns and furnishes faith. . . . L\..s the schoolmen say, that charity adorns and furnishes faith; so do we say, that it is Christ which furnishes or adorns faith, or rather, that He is the very form and perfection of faith. Wherefore Christ apprehended byfaith and dwelling in the heart is the true Christian righteousness, for which G.ocl counteth us righteous and giveth us eternal life.' 1 Faith, then, he taught, will justify, not bpcause it is full of love, but because it is fuU of Christ. rrherefore, too, he thought it necessary to state, that faith justified, before it had charity or good ,vorks with it; though, of necessity, it must produce charity and good works, as soon as it has justified. Faith he cOlnpares to the bride, Christ to the bridegroo111. The bride will be alone with the Bridegroon1, but as soon as she conleth forth frOI11 the bride- chalnber, she will be attended by her bridesmaids and followers, good works and holiness. The earnestness ,vith which he pursued his object, and tbe iu- finite importance which he attached to it, led him into vehemence of expressions, and perhaps inaccuracy of statements, which only the circumstances of the case can extenuate. .L t times he seer11S to speak, as if faith itself ,vas the cause, not merely the instru111ent, of sah""ation. At other tillles he writes, as if good ,vorks ,vere rather to be avoided than desired. But it is fair to consider these expressions, as the result of inadvertence and the iUl petuosity with ,,'hich he pleaded a favourite cause; ,vhen we find statements of the evil of Antinon1Ïanisrn, and the excellency of tbose works which spring froln faith, in other portions of the very same ,vritings. 2 It should be added, tbat Lutber plainly put forth the statenlent, that the sins of the believer are inlputed to Christ, and so that ( hrist's righteousness is Ï1nputed to the believer. 3 lIe speaks often of the desirableness of attaining to personal assurance of salvation, and at times appears to identify this assurance with justifying faith. 4 I Luther on Galat. ii. 16. See also on Gal. ii. [7; v. [6. 2 For example, on Gal. iii. 22 : "Vhen we are <,ut of the matter of justification, we cannot enough praise and extol those works which God has commanded. For who can enough commend the profit and fruit of only one work, which a Christian does in and through faith 1 Indeed, it is more precious tha.n heaven and earth.' èe also on Gal. iii. 19, 23, 27, &c. 3 See on Gal. ii. 16: iii. 13. 4 See on Gal. iii. 13, Opera, 1554, Tom. v. p. 350. Concerning Luther's view of the c,mnexiull of justification with baptism, we may refer to his commentary on Gal. iii. 27, Tom. Y. p. 369. There he says, "Y e have by nature the leathern coat of Aùam, but we put on Christ by ba.ptism.' In nal>ti lllo non datur vesti- tus legalis justitiæ aut nostrorum opprum, seù Chri::;tus fit inùumentmn nostrUlIl. . . Evangelice ChristuIIl induere, non e::;t legem et opera, sed inæstimabile donmn illduere, scilicet remi8sionem peccatoruru, justitiam, pacem, consolatiollem, lætitiam S li:C. I.] OF THE JrSTIFICATIOX OF :MAX. 285 The Council of Trent was much occupied in discussing Luther's doctrine of j ustificatiou. Indeed the Tridentine fathers appear to have gone to the consideration of it, .with the conviction that an his errors Il1ight be resohoed into this one.! It ,vas universally agreed among these divines that faith justifies. But what justifying faith was, or how it justified, was much debated. C.All agreed, that justifying faith is an assent to whatsoever is revealed by God, or determined by the Church to be believed; which, sometÏInes being joined with charity, s0u1etimes remaining without it, they distinguished into two sorts; one, which is found in sinners, which the schools call unformed, solitary, idle, or dead: the other, ,vhich is only in the good, ,vorking by charity, and therefore called formed, efficacious, and lively.' But it was not universally agreed, that justifying faith ,vas to be caUed faith formed by charity; 1Iarinarus, a Carmelite, objecting that St. Paul did not sa,. that faith ,vas formed bv cbaritv, but tbat it worketh by charity.2 There ,vas much discussion concerning works before grace, and rnerit de congruo,. in which the Franciscans maintained, whilst the Dominicans denied, that good works could be done ,vithout the Spirit of God, and so merit grace of congruity. 8 But concerning ,yorks after grace, all agreed to conden1n Luther, who denied in- trinsic goodness to ,yorks done in and after grace, and asserted even that these wer sins. These, they all asserted, having been ,vrought by the Spirit of God, were essentially good and perfect. 4 They all agreed too, that only faith could not be said to justify, since God and the Sacraments do justify, as causes in their sevçral kinds. 5 But the principal points of the Jifficnlty were: first, Is a man justified, and then acts justly? or, Does he act justly, and then is justified? and secondly, Is the word' justify' to be used in the forensic sense of imputing righteousness; or does it mean infusion of habitual righteousness into the heart? On the latter point there was much difference of opinion; the Franciscans strongly opposing the forensic sense, which was as strongly upheld by l\Iarinarus. None doubted, that Christ had merited for llS, but some blamed tbe word to impute, because it ,vas not found in the fathers; whilst others said that, agreeing on the thing, it was needless to dispute about the word; a word which it appears the Dominicans especially in Spiritu Sa.ncto, 8alutem, vitam, et I Christum ipsum. See also .De Sacr. Baptism. Tom. I. p. 7 2 . 1 Sarpi, /list. Lib. II. p. 178. 2 Ibid. p. Ig3. 8 Ibid. p. 18 5. 4 Ibid. p. 186. t Ibid. p. 18 3. C) 8 l> OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF l\IAN. [AnT. XI. ,, ould have accepted, as showing that all \vas from Christ, but that they suspected any word which was popular with the Lutherans. l .... fter many such discussions as these, the Council finally dre,v up sixteen heads and thirty canons or anathemas on the subject of justification, yet so guarded and obscure, that each party 'v rote treatises to prove that the decisions .were in their favour. 2 The lTIOst important of the decrees \vere the following: (2) That God sent His Son to redeem both Je,ys and Gentiles. (3) But that though He died for all, yet those only enjoy the benefit, to \vhon1 His lllerit is cOlnnlunicated. (4) That the justification of the wicked is a translation from the state of a son of Adam to that of a son of God, 'v hich, since the Gospel, is not done \\ithout baptisnl or the vo,v thereof. (5) 'That the beginning of justification in adults proceeds fronl preventing grace. (7} That justification is not only 'J"c1nission of sins, bu.t sanctification also; and has five causes; the final, God's glory and eternal life; the efficient, God; t he n1eritorious Christ; the instru111ental, the sacraments; and the fornlal, righteousness, given by God, received according to the good pleasure of the Ho]y Ghost, and according to tbe disposition of the receiver, receiving together with remission of sins, faith, hope, and cha{'ity. (8) That when St. Paul saith that D1an is justified by faith and gratis, it ought to be understood, because faith is the beginning, and the things which precede justification are not meritorious of grace. 3 Among the anathe'lnas, SOllle of the nlost important are: (I) That a man 1nay be j I1stified without grace. (I I) rrhat 1nan is justified only by the imputation of the justice of Ohrist, or only by remission of sins \vithout inherent grace, or charity; or that the grace of justification is only the favour of God. (12) That justi- fying faith is nothing but confidence in the mercy of God, who re- mitteth sins for Christ. (I 4 That m n is absolved and justified, because he doth firnlly believe that he is justified. 4 These articles and canons sho\v the difference between Luther and the Oouncil of Trent, so far as we can be certain of the design of the latter. Yet the nlost eminent divines present in the Council; after its decrees, debated on their sense; 5 so that at 1ast it was necessary to make a decree against all notes, glosses and commen- taries; the Pope reserving to himself the right of solving diffi- culties, and settling controversies on the subject. 6 1 Sarpi, lIist. Ek. II. p. 187. 2 Ibid. p. 202. 3 Concil. Trident. Sess. VI. cappo 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. 4 Concil. Trident. Ca.n. T. II, 12, q. 5 Sarpi, Bk. II. p. 21 S. G Ibid. Bk. VIII. p. 762. SEC. I.] O ., THE JlJSTIFICATION OF MAN. 287 Roman Catholic writers since the Reforn1ation have generally gone against the forensic sense of the word 'justify'; have held that God by grace implants inherent righteousness in the heart, makes the sinner righteous by union with Christ and the in(lwel1ing of IIis Spirit, and that then He esteems him, what in fact He has made hirD, a holy and righteous man. Their view has been thus stated by one, who mar be supposed to have carefully studied it. C It appears that they hold two things :-that the presence of grace implies the absence of mortal sin; next, that it is a divine gift bringing with it the property of a continual acceptableness, and 80 recommending the soul to God's favour, so as to anticipate the necessity of any superadded pardon.' I To return to the Lutheran divines: l\felancthon, the Confession of Augsburg, and generally the more moderate Lutherans, softened and eXplained the strong language of Luther. With them Faith was trust (flducia), or fiduciary apprehension. It was made clear, that faith in itself had no virtue, but that the meritorious cause of j nstification was the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. So that justification br faith was even said to be a c01"'relal-Ïve ternl for justification or salvation by the merits and death of Christ. Nay, justification by faith was even called a Paulina figura, by which was meant, that we are saved by grace, and not by claims or merits of our 'own. 2 I Newman, On J'Ustificaliwl1, p. 39 6 . See also Bellarmine, De JHstijiC.; and Barrow, V 01. II. Sect. v. p. ï9. Bellarmine states the cause of justifi- cation thus: 1. The final cause, God's glory and our salvation. 2. l ' he efficient CmlSf', God's goodness and Christ's merits. 3. The 'Y1laterial cause, the mind or will of man, in which righteousness abides, and in which are formed the dispositioIls pre- disposing to the formal cause. 4. 'l'J e formal cause, internally, the habit of grace; externally, the righteousness of Christ. .De Justijic. Lib. I. cap. 2. J usti- fication he denie to consist in remission of sins or imputation of righteousness only, but asserts it to have for its formal cause the infusion of habitual righteousness. Lib. II. cap. 3, 6, 15. Good works he asserts to be meritorious of eternal life, but that, because they are wrought in us by the grace of God. Lib. v. cap. 12, et passim.. :I Fide sumus justi, id est, per miseri- cordiam propter Christum sumus justi ; non qua fides sit virtus, quæ mereatur remissionem sua dignitate. -Melancth. Loci Theolog. de .Argum. .Ad 'er8. p. 286. Laurence, B. L. p. 333. Cum dicitur, Fide justificamur, non aliud dicitur, quam quod propter Filium Dei accipiamus remissionem peccatorum et reputemur justi. . . . Intelligatur ergo propositio correlative, Fide justi sumus, id est, per misericordiam propter Filium Dei sumus justi seu accepti.-J\Ie1. Loc. l'heol. de Voc. Fidei, f. 199.2. Newman, 011 Justif. p. 278. Cum igitur dicimus Fide justifica'mw., non hoc inteJIigimus, quod justi sumus propter ipsius virtutis dignitatem, sed hwc est sententia, consequi nos remis- sionem peccatorum, et imputationem ju::;- titiæ per misericordiam propter Christum. . . . Jam bonas mentes nihil offendet nO'Vitas ltujus Pa'Ulinæ fig'Uræ, Fide justi- ficarnm", si intelligant pruprie de miseri- cordia dici, eamyue veris et necessariis laudibus ornari. Quid potest enim esse gratius conscientiæ affiictæ et pavidæ in veris doloribu8 quam au dire, hoc esse mandatum Dei hane esse yocem sponsi Christi, ut statuant certe donari remis- sionem peccatorulll seu reconciliationem, non propter nostram dignitatern, sed gratis, per misericordiam, propter Chris- turn, ut beneficium sit certum.-Confessio August. 1540. .De Fide. Sylloge Oonfcs- sionum, Oxf. 1827, p. 182. . 288 (\F THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [ART. XI. Thus then it was ruled, that the peculiar significance of St. Paul's language, and of the Lutheran use of it, implied, not an opposition of faith to charity, or of faith to holiness, but an opposition of the merits of Christ to the n1erits of man, of the mercy of God to the claims which a sinner might suppose him- self to have for acceptance in G-od's presencp. Still it was clear that, in some sense, faith was made the in- st1'ument or ,for"1nal cause of justification. And the question still remained, Had such faith love in it, or was it to be considered as apart frorn love? vVe have seen that Luther declared, that justifying faith had not love in it, tin it had justified; and to his definitions some of the Lutherans adhered, though he may him- Eelf afterwards have in some degree modified them. Melancthon and the moderate Lutherans appear to have spoken rather differently. Melancthon says, that 'no doubt there are love and other graces in faith'; but that, when St. Paul says, 'we are justified by faith,' he means, not by tbe virtue of that grace, but 'by the mercy of God, for the sake of the l\lediator.' 1 The Confes- sion of Augsbl1rg declares, that C faith cannot exist except in those who repent; , that, C among good ,yorks, the chief is faith, which produces nlany other virtues, which cannot exist till faith has been conceived in the heart.' 2 Again, it reconciles St. J anles and St. Paul, by eXplaining, that St. J anles speaks of a mere historical faith, while St. Paul speaks of reliance on God's mercy in Christ. 3 It distinctly asserts, that faith brings forth good ,yorks, and quotes with approbation tbe words of St. Ambrose, Fides bonæ voluntatis et illstæ action-is .qenitrix est! .A.ll then, but a few of the more rigid Lutherans, agreed, that it was a living, not a dead faith, a faith, full of good works, not a bare and historical assent to truth, which justified the soul. Still the question remained, Was it fides, quæ 'Viva ('st, or fides qna vív(t est (i.e., f ith, which is living, or faith, because it is living), which justifies? Some thought that, if it \vere considered as justifying because it was living, tben there would be some merit attached to that \vhich quickened it, or which show d 1 Concedo in fiducia inesse dilecti- onern, et hanc virtutern et plerasqne alias adesseoportere; sed cum dicimu , j1'iducia l5umus justi) non intelligatur nos propter virtutis istius dignitatem, sed per mise- ricordiam recipi propter Mcdiatorem, (lnern tamen oportet fide apprehendi. Ergo hoc dicimlls correlati \'e.- Idancth. Loci Tlwolo ,. de A Tgum. ..4 d .ers. p. 284. Laurence, B. L. p. 332. Newman, J'Us- tific. p. IÚ. 2 .K ec e>.istere fides potest Ili i in his qui pænitentiam agunt, quia fides conso. latur corda in contritione et terroribuB peccati. . . . Inter bona opera, præcipuum est et summus cultus Dei fides ipsa, et parit mnltas alias virtutes, quæ existere non posE'unt, nisi prius corda fidem con- ceperillt.-Confess. August. SyU. Conf. P.S3. . 3 Syll()ge Coni. pp. 181, 182. 4 Ibid. p. 18 3. SEC. 1J OF THE JUSTIFICATIOX OF IAN. 289 it to be alive, i.e., to charity. )Iodes were invented of explaining the difficulty, which savoured lnore of rnetaphysical subtlety than of practical wisdom, such as that mentioned by Bishop Bull: 'Faith justifies, pregnant with good works, but not as yet having gh-en birth to them.' 1 Bllce'J', a divine who had some concern in our own lleforma- tion and whose opinions are therefore particularly interesting to us, seems to have been very moderate on this subject. He ex- presses his regret, that language should be used concerning faith alone, to the exclusion of holiness, such as to offend well-meaning Inen. He considers that no one should object to the additions of viva or .forJnata as applied to justifying faith; since it is plain, that St. Paul spoke of a living faith, as justifying, and only llleant to exclude self-righteousness. 2 Several controversies concerning justification arose among the Lutherans, even in the lifetilne of Luther. Osiander, A.D. 1550, broached sonle opinions, the exact nature of which it lnay be diffi.. cult to divine. They appear to have been chiefly' that faith does not justify by applying and embracing the righteousness of the l\Ian Christ, but by uniting to Christ, who then by His Divine nature dwells in. the heart, and that this union both justifies before God, and sanctifies the sinner.' There was probably, however, something more than this, or it would hardly have excited the vehement opposition of so mild a man as l\fe]ancthon. 3 Of a very different kind \vere the errors of Agricola (A.D. I 538), who is accused of having carried the doctrine of faith alone to its 1110st noxiol1s extreme. He is esteemed the founder of the .L-t\.ntinomians; and is said to have held, that all licentiousness and sin were allowable, if onl)'" Christ was received and embraced by a lively faith. He was vigorously opposed by Luther.! To proceed fronl the Lutheran to the Calvinistic refOl"lllerS; they appear for the most part to have sYlnbolized with Luther in his general statement concerning justification. They declared, tbat to justify was a forensic term signifying to 'J'c1nit sins, and pronounce 1'ighteolls. 5 They said, that ,ve receive this justification not by 1 Bull, Harm. Apostol. Diss. Prior. VI. 2. 2 See peëially on Psalm xi. quoted by Bull, Harm. Apo8tol. Diss. Post. II. 8. 3 J\Io::;h. Ch. llist. Art. XVI. S III. part If. See al:,o Calvo Institut. III. cap. XI. 5-I1, who accuses him of opinions bor- dering on Ianicheism, 4 .1\10sh. as above. 5 Justificatio f;ignificat Ap08tolo in disputatione ùe .J u.stificatione, peccata remittere, a culpa et pæna absol-t:el.c, in !Jl'atiam reciperc, et jllstlU/ pronwwiare. -Confess. HeÜ'ct. S!Jllo!Je, p. 5 I. X os justification em simpliciter inter- pretamur acceptionem, qua nos Dens in graHam rec!"ptos pro justi:5 babet.-Cal vin, lnst. III. XI. 2. u 290 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF L\X. [ART. XI. works, but by faith in God's nlercy; and because faith receives Christ, our righteousness, and ascribes all to God's grace in Christ, therefore j ustificatioll is attributed to faith, and that, chiefly be- cause of Christ, not because it is any ,vork of ours.! They con- sidered it to consist especial1y in the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to us; and strenuously denied, that j Llstification ,vas in consequence of any internal sanctification wrought in us by the ind,velling of the Holy Ghost, and the faith which He inspires. 2 r.rhey denied, that justification ,vas of faith and w'orks cOlljoined. 3 But when the question arose, Is the fait.h which justifies to be considered as alone, and il1forn is, or lively, and full of good works (fo'rJnata)? they seen1 to have decided, that it ,vas the latter, and not the foru1er; although Calvin com- plained that the distinct.ion was nugatory, inasn1uch as faith never could exist apart from the holiness ,vhich it produces. 4 Our own reforn1ers soon em braced the docti-ine of Luther, with such modifications as their o\vn wisdom suggested. In the Articles set forth in I 536, justification is defined to signify remis- sion of sins and acceptance into the favour of God. "\Ve are said to attain this justification for the only mercy and grace of the Father, freely for Jesus Christ's sake, through contrition and faith joined with charity; 5 language ,vhich is repeated in the Institution of a Christian Jlan. Ô As on other subjects, the English reformers' yiews gre\y l110re :fixed and definite after the death of Henry VIII. rrhe IIomil y of Salvation and the I I th Article of I 552 expressed definitively the judgn1ent of Cranmer and his companions on justification. The I I th Article, as drawn by them, ran thus: 'Justification by only 1 Eylloge, p. 5 I. 2 Deus nos justificat non impntalls nobis peccata, sed imputans Christi noLi justitiam.-Sylloge, p. 52. Hine et illud eonficitnr, sola interces- 8ionejustitiæChristino oùtinere ut cora.m Deo justificemur. Quod perillòe valet ae si diceretur hominem non in seipso jnstum esse, sed quia Christi justitia im- putatione CUIll illo eommunicatur: quod aecurata animadvprsione dignum est. Siqnidem evanescit nugamentmll illnd, ideo justificari hominem fide, quoniam illa piritull1 Dei participat quo justus red- ditur: quod magis est eontrarium supe- riori doctrillæ quam ut conciliari unquam qneat. N eque pnim dubium, quin sit inops propriæ justitiæ qui justitiam extra seipsnm quærere docetur.-Calv. Insl. III. xi. 23. 3 Calvo Inst. III. xi. 13, 14. 4 Qnapwpter loqnilllur in hac caU8a, non de ficta fide, de inani et otiosa et mortua, sed de viva, vivificallteque, quæ propter Chri tum, qui vita est et vivific_at, quem comprehend it, viva est et dicitur, ae se vivam esse vids declarat operiLus. Nihil itaque contra hanc nostram doc- trinam pugnat Jacobus ille, qui de fide loquitur iualli et mortua, quam quidaUl jactabant, Christum autem ïlltra se vi ven- tem per fidem non habeballt.-Confess. lle/ut. Eylloge, p. 53. See a1::;o Calvin, Inst. III. i. 8, quoted above. 5 Formularics (if Faith in the Reign of Ilenr!! rIll. Oxford, p. 12. 6 Ibid. p. 209. . SEC. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATIOK OF :.\IAX. 291 faith in Jesus Christ, in that sense as it is declared in the Homily of Justification, is a most certain and w holeson1e doctrine for Christian n1en.' The Article, as it stands now, is somewhat dif- ferently worded, but probably conveys the same sense. Both send us to the 'Homily of Justification,' as the interpreter of the sense in ,vhich the Church of England understands' Justification by faith; , and therefore the definitions of this homily, if ,ve can discover them, are the definitions of the Anglican Church concern- ing this debated point. There is no homily entitled the Homily of Justification, but the Honlily of Salvation treats expressly of justification; and it has therefore always been understood, either that this homily alone (or this conjoined with that which pre- cedes, and that which follows it), is the homily referred to in the Article. The Article itself, as it no\v stands, appears to speak very much the language of }Ielancthon and the Confession of Augs- burg; for its statement of the doctrine of justification by faith is, that ' "'Teare accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own 'VOl' ks or deservings.' This is language very similar to that of .nIelancthon, quoted above, who considered justification by faith, and salvation by grace, to be correlative terms; and to that of the Confession of .Augsburg, ,vhich calls justification by faith a Paulina fig UTa for remission of sins by mercy, for the sake of Christ. For further explanation, the Article sends us to the homily, which teaches as follows. It begins by defining justification to be 'the forgiveness of sins and trespasses.' 'This justification or righteousness, which ,ve so receive of God's mercy and Christ's merits embraced by faith, is taken, allowed, .and accepted for our perfect and full justification. . . . . God sent His Son into the world to fulfil the Law for us, and by shedding of His most precious Blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be calleà) amends to His Father for our sins, to assuage His \vrath and indignation conceived against us for the sanle. Insomuch tbat infants, being baptized and dying in their infancy, are by this sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to God's favour, and made His children, and inheritors or His l\:ingdoln of Heaven. ..A.nd they, which in act or deed, do sin after baptism, ,vhen they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise 'washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation. This is that justification of righteousness, \vhich U 2 292 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF }lAN. [ART. XI. St. raul speaketh of, when he saith, .J.Vo 'nlan is Justified by tlw 'lco'rks of the law, but fteely, by fa'íth in Jeslls ChTist. Gal. ii. . . . The Apostle toucheth expressly three things, ,vhich n1ust go togetber in our justification. Upon God's part, His great nlercy and grace: upon Christ's part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God's justice: . . . . upon our part, true ancllively faith in tbe merits of Jesus Christ, ,vhich yet is not ours, but God's working in us. . . . . rrherefore St. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true ancl lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of God, and not man's only ,york ,vithout God. And yet that faith doth not shut out How it is to repentance, hope, love, dread and the fear of God, to be understood be joined \vith faith in every man that is justified that faith jus- b . h h h ' f . . . ' tifieth with- ut It 8 uttet t em out rom the office of JustIfYIng. out works. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether; nor the faith also cloth not shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty towards God; (for we are Inost bounden to serve God in doing good deeds, commanded by Him in His holy Scripture, all the days of our life:) but it excludeth them, so that ,ve may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them.' 1 Again-' The true understanding of the doctrine, ,ve be justi- fied freely by faith ,vithout ,vorks, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only, is not, that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ, which is ,vithin us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification unto us (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue ,vhich is within ourselves); but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God's word, and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread and fear of God within us, and do never 80 many good works thereunto; yet we n1ust renounce the merit of all said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds, ,vhich \ve either have done, shall do, or can do, s things that be far too ,veak and insufficient and i111perfect, to deserye remission of our sins and our justification; and therefore ,ve must trust only in God's mercy, and that sacrifice ,vhich our High Priest and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God's grace and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed 1 First part of the Ilornily of Saz,mtion. SEC. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF IAN. 293 by us after our baptism, if ,ye truly repent and turn unfeignedly to hiIll again. So that as St. John the Baptist, although he was never so yirtuous and godly a man, yet in this Inatter of forgiveness of sin, he diù put the people from him, and appointed them to Christ, saying thus unto them: Behold the La1ì b of God, 'lulâch taketh au.ay the sins of the 'ltorld, John i.; even so, as great and godly a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itself, and ren1itteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by Him remission of our sins, or justification. So that our faith in Christ (as it '\vere) saith unto us thus: It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only; and to him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ.' 1 It is plain, that tbe doctrine contained in these extracts (from a hon1ily, which has unusual authority, as being virtually assented to by everyone who signs the Articles) is briefly as follows. That, which tbe English reformers n1eant by justification by faitb, is that '\Ve can never deserve anything at God's hands by our own ,yorks-that therefore we must owe our salvation only to the free mercy of God, ,vho, for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ, pardons and accepts a11 infants 'v ho are baptized in His naIne, and an persons '\V ho sin after baptism, ,vhen by His grace they are brought to repentance and conversion-that justification is especially assigned to faith, not because of any peculiar excellence in faith itself, but rather because faith sends us from itself to Christ, and because by it we apprehend Christ, and rest upon Hinl only for acceptance '\vith God-.that, though therefore '\ve ascribe justifica- tion to faith only, it is not nleant, that j llstifying faith either is or can be without its fruits, but that it is ever pregnant and adorned \vith love, and hope, and holiness. Language in strict conformity ,vith this was unifornlly held by those "ho bad tbe chief hand in drawing up the Articles and cOlllpiling the Liturgy, and is to be found in those sen1Î- authoritative documents \vhich "ere' from time to tinle set forth by thenl. 2 1 Second part of IImnily of SaÜ'ation. Also concerning the difference between a dead and living faith, and the reconcilia- tion of St. Paul and St. J ame , see Part 3. See also the conclusion of the 3rd part of the llomily on Prayer; the 2nd part of the II01nily on AI11l!idccds, near the middle; the conclu ion of the second Homily of the Passion, and particularly the whole of the lJomilies of Faith and Uood 1rorks. 2 'Ye may refer particularly to the following: Cranmer's Catechism, Oxf. pp. 9 8 , 1I4, lIS, 143! 20 5; Cranmer's Trm"ks; Nl. Jenkins, Oxf. Vol. II. p. 12 I, III. 553. .Justification is thus briefly explained in Edw. YI.'s Catechism; 'As oft as we use to say that we are made righteous and saved by faith only: it is meant thereby, that faith or rather trust alone doth lay 294 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF IAN. [ART. XI. Owing to the unhappy divisions of later tilnes in the Church of England, there has been no small difference among her divines on this head of justification; a difference, ho\vever, which there is good reason to hope is rather apparent in scholastic and logical definitions, than in its bearing on vital truth or practical godliness. 1.'he great Hooker 'YTote a treatise on Justification, in which he strongly impugns the doctrine of the Church of Rome con- cerning justification by infusion of righteousness, and nlaintains the principle of inlputatiol1, distinguishing the righteousness of justification as external to us, the righteousness of sanctification as interna1. 1 Bishop Bull, in his Harrnonia Apostolica admits that sense of justification by faith, which, he says, all the sounder Protestants have attached to it, viz., Salvation by grace only. He takes justi- fication in the forensic sense, the meritorious cause of which is Christ, the instrument or formal cause being fides fornzata, or faith accompanied by good \vorks. 2 Dr. Barro\v, in the first five of his Sermons on the Creed, dis- cusses the nature of faith and justification with great learning and moderation. Justification he shows to be a forensic term, to be given for the sake of Christ, to be the result of God's mere mercy, hand upon, understand, and perceive our righteous making to be given us of God freely: that i:-3 to say, by no deserts of our own, but by the free grace of the Almighty Father. :!Horeover, faith doth engender in us the love of our neighbour, and such works as God is pleased withal. For if it be a true and lively faith, quickened by the Holy Gho t, she is the mother of all good saying and doing. . . And although good works cannot deserve to make us righteous before God, yet do they 80 cleave unto faith, that neither can faith be found without them, nor good works be anywhere without faith. '-(Bncltiridion J.'hcolog. VoL 1. p. 25.) See Noel's Catechism: Ad Dei miseri- cordiam confugiendum est qua gratis nos in Christo nullo nostro merito nec operum respectu, amore et bene\'olentia complec- titur; turn peccata nobis nm;tracondonans, tUI.l1 justitiaChristi per :Fidem ill ipsum ita nos donans ut ob eam, perinde ac si nostra esset, ipsi accepti simus. . . . ill. Non ergo inter hujus justitiæ causas -'idem prin- cipem locum tenere did!':, ut ('jus merito nos ex nobis justi coram Deo habeamur 1 .A. K equaquam: id enim esspt }---idem in Christi locum substituere. . . . .ill. Verum an a bonis operibus ita separari hæc jus- titia potest, ut qui hanc habet, illis careat 1 A. Nequaquam. . . . lJI. Justitiam ergo, :Fidem, ac bona opera, natura cohcrentia esse dicis, quæ proinde non magis distrahi debeant quam Christus illorum in nobis author a seipso divelli posRit.-.Enchiric.l. 1'lwolog. Vol. I. pp. 28 I, 282. Jewell's .Apology: Itaque unicum re- ceptnm nostrum et perfugium esse ad misericordiam Patris nostri per J esum Christum, ut certo animis nostris per- snadeamus ilIum esse propitiationem pro peccatis nostris; ejus sanguine omlles Iabes nostras deletas esse. . . . Quam vis autem dicamus nihil nobis esse præsidii in operibus et factis nostris, et omnìs salutis nostræ rationem constituamus in solo Christo, non tamen ea cau a dicimus laxe et solute vivendum esse, quasi tingi tantum et credere satis sit homiui Chris- tiano et nihil ab eo aliud expectetur. Vera Fides viva est, nee potest esse otiosa.-l:nchirÙl. l'heolog. pp. 131, 132. I Discourse onJ'Ustification,&c., Tr01'ks Vol. III. Pa.rt II. p. 601. Oxf. 1836. 2 Buirs IIarm. .Apost. and Examcn Ccnsu'l'æ. Jrorks, Oxf. V 01. III. IV. SEC. 1.J OF THE Jl;STIFICATION OF l\IAK. 295 apart froll1 our deserts; yet he considers baptism anù faith to be the conllitions of justification, and faith to include its effects. :Faith is a hearty reception of the Gospel, first exerting itself by open avowal in baptism, to which tin1e therefore the act of justifi- cation especially pertains. Yet, too, every dispensation of pardon granted upon repentance may be also termed justification. Hence every person is justified freely for Christ's sake at his baptisn1, con- tinues justified \vhilst he is in a state of lively faith, and returns to a state of justification, if he have fallen from it, by repentance. 1 Dr. 'Vater land, in a very able tract on the same su Lject, argues, that the causes of justification are (I) the moving cause, God's grace and goodness; (2) the meritorious cause, Christ; (3) the effi- cient cause, the Holy Spirit-That its instrulnents are (I) baptislll; (2) faith-that its conditions are (r) faith; (2) obedience. 2 lr. Alexander l nox, a \vriter of g."eat origina1ity and piety, expressed hinlself unable to believe the rrotestant doctrine of jus- tification. rrhe forensic sense of the word seelTIed to hiln too like a legal fiction; and he could not believe, that God could pronounce anyone just, or account anyone righteous, ,vho had really no such inherent quality as justice or righteousness. Accordingly, he solved the difficulty by asserting that Goel pronounces those righteous by justification, "holn He has alread)7' 111ade so hy sanc- tification. 3 In still later days, 1\11'. Faber has written an able \york to prove, that in the earliest Christian writers, fron1 Clement of H,onle down"ards, the word justification is used strictly in its forensic sense, find tbat justification is ascribed to faith alone. 4 Lastly, not very long before his secession to the Church of Ronle, Card. Newman published a n10st logical treatise, in "hich he professes to steer a 111iddle course between the R0111an and the Lutheran doctrines. He takes the forensic sense of the tern1 justification-and asserts, that it is conferred in baptism, is main- tained b) faith, and consists in the indwelling of the Spirit of God, and the being lnade members of the Body of Christ. 5 "\Yhatever speculative differences nULY have existed of late or in tin1es gone by, it is no s111all comfort to know, that it has been allowed by all, that fallen man cannot of hi1l1self becoIne worthy of eternal salvation, that he stands in need both of pardoning mercy .. 1 Trorks, fol. Y 01. II. especially Ser- mons IY. Y. T 2 '\ aterlancl, On Just(fication, JrÓd.:s: "\ an :\[]ldert, Yol. IX. p. 427. Knox's ]lu/La ins. 4 Faber's Primiti'l:e Doctrine of Jus- tificat ion. 5 X ewman, all .Just ifieation: see ef;pe- cially Leet. III. VI. U... 296 OF THE JUSTIFICA 1'lOX OF l\IAK. [ART. XI. and sanctifying grace, that this Inercy and this grace have been procured for hin1 by the all-prevailing merits of the Redeenler, and that these blessings, offered to aU, may be appropriated to the individual believer by that faith, ,vhich the Holy Spirit ,viII ilnplant, and ,vhich ll1USt produce Jove and holiness and all good fruits. 'fhe divines of fJ.-'rent and their 1l10st extren1e antagonists have denied none of these propositions. SECTION II.-SCI1IPTUI1AL I)IlOOF. I. QEKSE of the "Tord Justification. )0 'fhe word, which ,ve render just or {righteous (viz., J1Kuloç, or in the IIebrew jJ"\1 ), has t,vo principal significations, the one popular, the other accurate. In its popular signification, it is nearly equivalent to good, holy, pioIts (è:ì'aeoç, f:Ù(Jf:ß 1 1Ç, ' DÇT); and is used commonly of men, ,yoLo are living a pious and upright life, not according to the perfect standard of the la\v of God, but subject to such imperfection and inlpurity as is common to 111an. Exanlples of this usage may be found in tbe follo,ving, among many other passages: Gen. vi. 9. Ps. xxxvii. I 2. Provo iv. 18 ; xxiv. 16. J\Iatt. i. 19; x. 4 I ; xxiii. 29. l\Iark vi. 20. Luke ii. 25. Acts x. 22. James v. 16. In its n10re accurate sense, óíKaloç signifies absolutely, strictly, and perfectly right- eous or just, ,vithout defect or inlpurity, like the holy Angels, or like God Himself. As for instance in Job ix. 2. Iatt. xxyii. 19. Luke xxiii. 47. Rom. ii. I 3; iii. 10. I Tin1. i. 9. In which, as in most sÌ1nilar passages, the word particularly seenlS to ex- press innocent, not guilty, 'with reference to a tribunal of justice, or question of crime. The same distinction is equally observable in the substantive righteousness (i' óLKaLo(J V1J); which at on time stands for strict and perfect justice (as in Acts xvii. 3 r. Rom. iii. 5. Rev. xix. I I, &c.): at other times for such goodness, holiness, or good deeds, as n1en under the grace of God are capable of (as in l)s. xv. 2. Isa. xxxii. r 7. fatt. v. 10,20; vi. 33. Acts xiii. 10. ROlD. vi. 18, 19, 20; viii. 10 ; xiv. 17. J ph. Y. 9 ; vi. 14. lIe b. xii. I I). rrhe verb óLKaLów, ,vhich strictly corresponds with the IIebre\v causative verb i'''I: ', and is translated in English' to justify,' in SEC. 11.J OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF :\IAK. 297 some degree partakes of the am biguity of the adjective from ,vhich it is formed; yet not so as, fairly considered, to introduce luuch difficulty into the doctrine of \vhich ,ve have to treat. 1. The literal signification of the verb, ,vhether in Hebrew or in Greek, is 'to make righteous.' It may therefore, of course, be used for sonlething like an infusion of righteousness into the nlind or character of a man; and the passive may signify the possession of that righteousne s so infused: and such a sense appears probably to belong to it in Rev. xxii. I I, 'He that is righteous, let him be righteous still' (ó ð!Kalo ðlKaLwBiJTW, in sonle ISS. ðlKULOa-ÚV1}JI 7rol1ja-clTÚJ) .1 2. But a very slight exanlination of the question can scarcely fail to convince us, that the cornnloner use of this verb in thp Scriptures is in the sense of a judicial sentence; and ( I) It signifies to execute a judicial act, in the general, to,vards a person, anù to do him right, 'whether in acquitting or in condelTIning him. Thus in 2 Sam. xv. 4: 'Oh that I '\\""ere made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or . h '\' I " ) d cause llng t come unto me ()"I r1p' i1' Kat OlKaLwa-w aVTOJl, an I ,vould fUSt1fy him,' that is, do hinl right. So Ps. lxxxii. 3: 'Defend the poor and the fatherless,j1lshfy ('Ip ï:::i1 ðLKaLC>>a-aTE) the poor and needy,' i.e., do them right. (2) Especially it signifies to pronounce sentence in a. man's fayonr, acquit him, free him frolH punishment. Deut. xxv. I: , The judges . . . . shall justify the righteous, and condellln the wicked.' I I{ings viii. 32. 2 Chron. yi. 23: 'Then hear Thou in IIeaven, and do, and judge Thy servants, condemning the ,vicked, to bring his ,yay upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to giye hÏ1n according to his righteousness.' Provo xvii. I 5: 'He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condenllleth the just, even they both are abon1Ïnation unto the Lorù.' So Exod. xxiii. 7. Psalm Ii. 4. And so in the New Testament.. :3Iatt. xii. 37: 'By tby words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be conden1ned' (i.e., in the day of judgment: see Yer. 36). (3) In consequence of this sense of the ',ord to justify, it is son1etinles used in general for to ap]J1 01'C or cstee1n a person just. So l\Iatt. xi. 19, "Visdom is justified of her children.' In Luke x. 29; xvi. I 5, 'ye read of people ,,,110 'justified themselv es.' Luke 1 The following passages have also been thought to have the word in this sen e, but perhaps without sufficient ground: ,-Tob xxxv. 7, 8. Ezek. xvi. 52. Ecclus. xviii. 22 ; xxxi. 5. 298 O"F THE .TUSTIFICATIOX 0 F 11AN. [ART. XI. XVlll. 14,' The publican went home justified,' (i.e., approved either by Goc1,or his own conscience,) 'rather than the Phari::;ee.' Luke vii. 29, , All the people justified God,' (i.e., declared their approbation of God's dealings in the mission of John,) 'being baptized ,vith John's baptism.' (4) So again, to justify is used for to free j1'01n b1l1'dens or obligat'ions, such as the obligations which a particular la\v inlposes on us, as 110m. vi. 7, , He that is dead is freed from sin' (literally is 'j nstified,' ðEdlKULWTUl). It appears, then, that in passages \v here the ,vord 'to justify' occurs with no particular reference to the doctrine of this Article, it is almost ahva rs used in a sense nlore or less connected ,vith the ideas of acquittal, pardon, acceptance, or approbation: i.e., in a forensic or judicial sense. It remains to see, ,,,,hether this is the sense in ,vhich St. Paul uses it, ,vhen directly and especially treating on justification by faith. N o'v this will appear, if \ve consider and COlnpare t.he following passages. In llom. v. 9, we read, 'Being j1lstificd by His Blood, ,ve shall be saved from wrath through Him.' 'Vith this compare Eph. i. 7, 'in ,vhom ,ve have redemption through His Blood, the f01YJÙrcncss of sins.' Again, if we con1pare Rom. iii. 24, 25, 26, \ve cannot fail to conclude that just1jication is a synonym for ')'c}nission of sins. C Being justified freely by His grace, through the reden1ption w.hich is in Christ Jesus: ,vhom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His Blood, to declare His righteousness for thc ')'elltission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, His righteous- ness, that He might be just, and the justifier of hin1 that believeth in Jesus.' Then the ,,"'ord justify is used as equivalent to count 0')" Í1npute ')'ight('ousncss and to C01:cr sin. rrhis appears plainly from Rom. iv. 5, 6, 7. Again, by comparing Rom. v. 9 w.ith Rorn. v. 10, it seen1S that to justify is synonynlous with to reconcile 'Lcith God,. for 7íO^^ Ô P.Û^^OV dlKaLw8ÉvTEÇ, 'much more being justified,' in the one verse ans,vers to 7íO^^CP fJ.Ú^^OV KaTU^^u7ÉJJTEÇ, , nluch nlore being reconciled,' in the other. Once nlore,justijìcation is directly opposed to conde171nation, as in Ronl. v. 18, ' By the offence of one (judgnlent came) upon all 1l1cn to condenlnation, even so by the righteousness of One (the free gift came) upon alllllell unto Justificcdion of life.' 1 Again, in 1 It has been argued '(Bellarm. De I infused into Ilis po:sterity, so this pa 8age Juslil1. 2, c. 3), that as Adam's sin was must mean that in justification Chrbt's SEC. I1.J OF THE JUSTIFICA TIOX OF IA . 299 Ronl. viii. 33, 34, "'Tho shaUlay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that Justifieth. "\Vho is he that condenuzcth ? ' ] But., which is more important than the conlpari on of particular passages, if "Te consider the ,,-hole course of St. Paul's reasoning in the earlier chapters of the Romans; we must be led to conclude that by justification he means acquittal fronl guilt arid acceptance with God. He begins by proving that all 111 en, Jew's and Gen- tiles, are condc1nnecl by the law (w"hether of )loses or of nature) under which they lived. (Rom. i. ii.) He shows from the la,v itself, that the Jews as ,yell as the Gentiles, ,yere guilty before God (Ram. iii. 9- 19); and that therefore all the world (if the Gospel be not taken into account) are lying under God's wrath and subject to His condemnation. And this course of reasoning leads hÏ1n to the conclusion, that, if. ,ve ,vould have justijìcation at all, it must be not by the ,yorks of la,v, but by the faith of Christ (Ron1. iii. 20). Now, in such a connexion, ,vhat lllust justification lllean? )Ian subject to the la,y (whether revealed or natura]) had so much sinned as to be subject to condc1nnation. The thing to be desired ,vas his Justification,. ,vhich justification could be only by the free grace of God through Christ. Surely then that Justification l11ust mean pardon for the sins ,vhich he had committed, and deliverance from the condetnnation into which his sins had thro,yn hinl. 'fhis is further shown imnlediately afterwards by the case and the language of saints of the Old Testament. Abrabam was justi- fied (or, as it is explained, , accounted righteous') IJY faith, not by his own good works and deservings. And David looks on a state of blessedness as one, in which a man has' his iniquities forgiven, and his sins covered' (Rom. iv. 1-8). The thing then which all the ,yorlc1 needed, and which could be obtained only through God's nlercy in Christ, was covering of sin, and forgiveness of iniquity. righteou!:ness is infltscd into His di!:ciples. To which it has been replied (Barrow, Yo1. II. Serm. v. p. 80), that justification and condeu1I1ation being 'buth acts of God, and it being plain, that God con- demning doth not infuse any inherf'nt un- righteou ness into man, neither doth He jU1'tifying (formally) (if the antithesis must be pat) put any inherent righteou - ne"s into him: inherent unriO'hteousne s in the former case may be a cO lsequent of that condemnation, and inherent right- eou!:ness may be connected with this justi- fication ; but neither that nor this may for- mally signify those qualities respectively: as the inherent unrighteou lle::5S COlise- quent upon Arlam's sin is not included in God's condemnation, 80 neither i:::; the in- herent righteousne s proceeding from our ,,-"aviour's obedit'nce contained in God's justifJing men.' 1 The antithEsis is 110t in the least degree altered, if the punctuation and translation of this passage, ".hich is more probably correct, be adopted. Ti f) KG- ÀÉ(JfL Kcuà ÈKÀfKTWJI efOÛ; efÒ ó OLKGLWV ; TL!j Ó KaTaKpípwp; Xp{(fTÒ Ó å7ro6apwv; K. T. À: '\Vho !':hall lay anything to the charge of God's dect? Shall Uod who justifieth? 'Vho is he that cUlldenmeth ? Is it Christ, who <.lied, &c. ?' 300 OF THE JUSTIFICATIOX OF 11A . [ART. XI. This therefore n1ust be what St. Paul means by the terlll Justifi- cat ion. II. Sense of the word Faith. Having arrived at a conclusion as to the sense of the words }1lst'ify and justification, it becomes necessary, in order to appreciate the meaning of the \vords Justification by faith, and the doctrine expressed by those words, to examine the usages of the term faith in Scripture, and especially in the \vritings of St. Paul. According to its derivation the word should mean persuasion of the truth of anything. But this does not decide its force as a theological virtue, still less its signification in the peculiar language of St. Paul. There can be little doubt, that it is used in very different senses in different parts of Scripture. For example: I. It is used to signify truth or good faith, (like 119 fides,) in Iatt. xxiii. 23, 'the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, Dlercy, and faith,. , and in Rom. ii,i. 3: 'Shall their unbelief n1ake the faith (or faithfulness) of God \vithout effect? ' 2. It is used of the assurance given by one person to another, Acts xvii. 3 I, \vhereof He hath given assu/J'ancc unto all lllen' ( , , ,.. ) 7ïl()TlJ/ 7ra()a()xwv 7rU()L . 3. It is used, as a term to designate the Christian Religion, 'the faith,' or 'the faith of Christ.' So Acts vi. 7, 'were obedient to the faith.' Acts xiii. 8, , seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.' Rom. i. 5, 'for obedience to the faith among all nations, ., f " ,,.. :JI Ð ( . 11 ' ElÇ V7raKOlJV 7rl()TEWÇ EV 7rU()L TOlÇ E VE()L . .c., to convert a natIons to the Christian religion). So xvi. 26. Cornp. Eph. iii. 17; iv. 5. Phil. i. 25. I Tin1. iv. 1. Tit. i. I, 4. James ii. I. Jude 3, 20. Rev. ii. 13; xiv. 12. In this sense St. Paul appears to use it sometinles in his Epistle to the Galatians; where perhaps \ye nlay consider, that in his constant antithesis of La\v and Faith, he is contrasting the Law of 1\10ses, or the religion of the J e'vs, with the Faith of Christ, or the Religion of the Gospel. Some of the more obvious usages of the word in this sense in the Epistle to the Galatians are in the following: Gal. i. 23, 'no\v preacheth the faith \vhich once he destroyed,' iii. 23, 'Before faith caDle (7rpÒ TOÛ d ÈÀÐElV Tl}V 7r[()TLV), we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith \vhich should after\vards be revealed' (Et"Ç T V jJ.f:ÀÀOV()UV à7rOKa^vcþÐ val 7r1()TLV). The same sense is apparent in the ,, hole context (vv. 24,25,26); \vhere it is taught us, that both Jews and Gentiles becollle children of God by the faith (i.e., by en1 bracing SEC. II.] OF THE JCSTIFICATION OF IAN. 301 the religion or Gospel) of Jesus Christ, having put on Christ by being baptized into Him. Accordingly, Gal. vi. 10, ,ve read of Christians as being OlKf:lOL 'Tijç 7r[a-TEWÇ, servants of the Gospel, clolllestics of the Christian faith. 4. There are passages in the Epistles, in ,vhich it seelns plain, that faith is spoken of as separable from its re3ults, as an assent to Christian truth, without the heart being duly moved by it, and so the life corresponding with it. That is to say, faith is used in that sense, which the schoohnen called fides ínfol'Tnís. Th ns St. Peter (2 Pet. i. 5) bids men' (ldd to their faith virtue' and all other Christian graces, as though faith might be considered as apart fronl other graces. St. Paul (I Cor. xiii. 2) speaks of a faith strong enough to move mountains, and yet capable of being conceived of as without charity, and so of no value; and in the same chapter (ver. I 3) speaks of faith, hope, charity, as three distinct graces, all three superior to all other gifts and graces, but he declares charity to be the greatest of the three. Espe- cially St. James (ii. 14-26) considers the case of faith without ,yorks, and declares such a faith unable to justify. 5. Yet, on the other hand, since it is the nature of faith to open the eye of the mind to things spiritual, and to bring home .to it the view of Heaven, and Hell, of God's justice and lnercy, of man's liability to judgment, and Christ's Atonement and ßledia- tion; therefore it is most commonly spoken of, as an operative and active principle, , purifying the heart' (Acts xv. 9), and' working by love' (Gal. v. 6). Åccordingly, in Heb. xi St Paul attributes to the energy of faith all the holiness and heroisnl of the saints and martyrs in times of old. 6. Especially, as the principal subjects of God's revelations are His promises; therefore faith came to Inean 7rE7roIÐr;a-[ç, fidllcia, reliance on the truth of God's promises, or trust in His Inercy and grace. Of such a nature was that faith, which gave n1en strength to benefit by the miraculous power of Christ and His Apostles, Iatt. ix. 2, 22: 'Thy faith hath nlade thee whole.' Acts xiv. 9, St. Panl perceived that the cripple at Lystra 'had faith -to be healed.' See also :Jlatt. viii. I 3 ; ix. 29 ; xvii. 20; xxi. 2 I. :1lark ii.-5; iV.40; v. 34; x. 52; xi. 22. Lukev. 20; vii. 9; viii. 25,4 8 ; xvii. 5, 6; xviii. 42. Acts iii. I 6. James v. 15. So St. James speaks of 'praying in faith, nothing wavering' (James i. 6), that is, praying in a spirit of trust in God and reliance 302 OF THE JUSTIFICATIO OF 11A . [ART. XI. on His prolnises. St. Peter (I Pet. v. 9) tells us to resist the devil, , steadfast in the faith,' i.e., steadily relying on the help of God. Of such a nature seems to be ' the shield of faith' (Eph. vi. 16), ,vhich can 'quench the fiery darts of the ,vicked one.' So we read of , faith and patience,' of 'the patience and faith of the saints' (Rev. ii. 19; xiii. 10), evidently signifying their resignation and tJ''Ust in God under trials and afflictions. So perhaps ,ve may say, that in the above-cited eleventh of Hebrews, faith is represented as a full conviction, that what God bad promised He 'was able and willing to perform; hence a trust or reliance on God's truth and promises, by ,vhich men overcame earthly t.emptations and difficulties, despised the "world, and fought a good fight. See especially vv. 10, II, 13, 14,16,19,26,27. Thus Dluch of faith generally. The question next arises, In what sense does St. Paul use the ,vord, ,vhen he speaks of faith as justifying? Is justifying faith a bare historical assent? Is it but a synonym for the religion of Christ? Is it trust and onfidence in God? Is it to be considered, as full of its fruits and lively in its operation, or apart froln all such, or at least prior to them? Let us examine those passages of Scripture, whether St. Paul's or not, in which it is certain or probable, that faith and justifica- tion are considered together, and see what attributes are assigned to the faith so spoken of. Justifying faith then is : I. The ,york and gift of God. :ßIatt. xvi. 17. John vi. 29,44,45. Phil. i. 29. 2. rfhe character of the regenerate. Con1pare Ga1. v. 6 with Gal. vi. 15 , whence it will appear that regeneration and justifying faith are used convertibly. 3. The sign of regeneration. I J"ohn v. 1: '"\Vhosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,' his faith being the prool of his regeneration. 4. It is seated in the heart, not D1erely in the understanding. 110m. x. 10: "Vith the heart man believeth unto righteous- _ ness.' 5. Is not dead. See J arnes ii. 14-26; ,vhich proves clearly that, if faith is ùead, and so ,vithout ,yorks, it does not profit. 6. But, on the contrary, is a full conviction of the truth of God's promises and reliance on thenl. See IIeb. xi. 19, ,vhere Abrahanl's faith, when he offered up Isaac, is described as an 'accounting that God was able to raise SEC. II.J OF THE Jl-:-STIFICATION OF :MAN. 303 him np even from the dead,' which is the very example adduced by St. Paul, \vhen he is specially treating on, the subject of j usti- fying faith (Rom. iv. 18-20), and by St. James, when he is recti- fying errors on the sanle important subject (James ii. 23, &c.). 7. It worketh by love. Gal. v. 6: where we read, that that which' arcâlcth' (i.e., j ustifieth) 'in Christ Jesus' is 'faith which worketh by love.' 8. Accordingly it sanctifies. Acts xxvi. 18: 'That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by j'ctith thai is in ]Ie.' 9. It purifies the heart. Acts xv. 9: 'Purifying their hearts by faith.' 10. It overcomes the world. 1 John v. 4: 'This is the victory that overcolneth the \VorILl, even our faith.' Compare Hebre,vs xi.. throughout the whole of ,vhich ,ve have a description of faith as that which overcomes the world. And with this again compare (as before) Rom. iv.; where the same kind of reasoning is used, and the same exanlp]e adduced concerning justifying faith, as in Heb. xi. concerning faith in the gener;'al. I I. It is evidently connected with its results, and by a kind of synecdoche considered as containing thenl/ or pregnant with then1. This will plainly appear, if ,ve examine the three passages, in which Abraham's faith is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness, i.e., to have been justifying. Those three passages are Gen. xv. 6. Ron1. iv. James ii. 21-23, to which may be added Heb. xi. 8-10. In Gen. xv. we read of God's promise to Abraham, that he should bave a son in his old age, \v hose seed should be as the stars of hea.ven for multitude. .And unlikely as this ,vas, and against all natural probability, Abraham, 'believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness,' ver. 6. In I{om. iv. St. Paul quotes this instance of Abrahanl's faith, and illustrates it thus (vel'. I 8-22); '\vho against hope believed in hope, that he might becon1e the father of many nations; ac- cording to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. .And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he \Ya about an hundred years old, neither yet the dead- ness of Sarah's womb; he staggered not at tlJe pron1Ïse of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to Goll; 1 See Barrow. 304 OF THE JUSTIFICATrO OF IA . [ A.RT. XI. and being fully persuaded that what lIe had pron1ised He ,vas able also to perform. And therefore it ,vas imputed to him for righteousness.' Now St. James (ii. 21-23) reasons on the subject thus: '\Vas not Abrahan1 our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou ho\v faith wrought ,vith his ,yorks, and by ,yorks ,vas faith made perfect? \..nd the Scrip- ture ,vas fulfilled 'which saith, Abraham' believed God, and it ,vas ilnputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.' And similar effects of his faith St. Paul hin1self speaks of, Heb. xi. 8: 'By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place ,vbich he shonld after receive for au inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not kno,ving whither he ,vent.' See also verses 9- I 2. Froill all ,vhich passages it is sufficiently apparent, that ,vhen the Scriptures speak of the faith of braham, which justified hirn, they understand by it a faith of such nature, that a man is per- suaded by it to disregard all earthly considerations, and to resign hill1self, contrary to all his ,vorldly interests, to obedient COll- forlnity ,vith the ,vill of God. I 2. As it was seen of faith in general, that it had special reference to the promises and mercies of God; so it ,vill be found that justifying fctith has special reference to the Person, sufferings, and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ,.alld to God's pro1l1ises in Him. For example, John iii. 14, I 5: '..:-\.s 1\105es lifted up the serpent in the ,vilc1erness, even so l11USt the Son of nUlll be liftec1 up; that whosoever believeth in Hin1 should not perish, but have eternal life.' John vi. 40: 'This is the ,vill of Hinl that sent :ßIe, that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on Hiln, may have everlasting life.' Ver. 47: ' Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Ie hath everlasting life.' Acts x. 43: 'Through His Name \vhosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.' xvi. 3 I : 'Believe on tbe Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.' Rom. iii. 25, 26: '\Vhom God hath. set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the ren1Ïssion of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: to declare, I say, at this tim.e, His right- eousness, that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.' x. 9: 'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him frolll the dead, thou shalt be saved.' See also John i. SEC. I1.J OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF l\IAN. 305 I 2; iii. 16, I 8, 36; V. 24; vi. 29, 35; xi. 2 5, 26; xvi. 27; xvii. 25. Acts xiii. 38, 39; XX.2I. Rom.iii. 22; iv. 5, 24; x.4. Philem.5. I John iii. 23; v. 1. So much indeed is this the character of faith (at least of that active faith which, as we have seen, is the faith ,vhich justifies), that by it Christ is said to dwell in the heart. Ephes. iii. 17: 'That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.' And so it not only has reference to tbe work of Christ for us, but it is both the proof of Christ dwelling in us, and the instrument whereby He d wells in us. III. Justification by Faith. N o,y it is quite clear that St. Paul's great object in tbe Epistle to the Romans ,vas to put down all claims on the part of Ulan to reward, for services done by hin1 to God. Accordingly, in the first three chapters he shows aU men, ,vhether Jews or Gentiles, to be sinners, and so deserving, not justification or acquittal, but condemnation. His conclusion is, that if we are savecl, it lllUst be by the merits of Christ or by free grace only; ,vithout any clairns on our part on the score of desert. This truth he expresses under the formula of 'Justification by faith.' Hence we conclude that, in the language of St. Paul, 'justi- fication by faith' and 'free salvation by grace' are (as it has been seen, that Ielancthon, the Confession of Augsburg, and our own Article and Homilies, teach) correlative or convertible expressions. The forlner means the latter. That this is the case will appear more plainly, if we read con- nectedly but a very few of the p ssages, in ,vhich St. Paul espe- cially propounds his doctrine of justification, e.g., Rom. ii. 23, 24, 28 : ' All have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being jnstified f'reÛy by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom, &c. . . . . therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.' Eph. ii. 8: 'By grace are ye saved through faith,' &c. Tit. iii. 4, 5, 7: 'Aft.er that the kindness and love of Goel our Saviour toward nlan appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, . . . . that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.' So Rom. iv. 25; v. I, 9, 16, 20, 2 I, compared together, clearly show the same thing. ' 'Vho was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore being justified x 306 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF :MAX. [ART. XI. by faith, \ve have peace ,vith God,' nOn1. iv. 25; vi. I. c )Iuch nlore then, being now justified by IIis blood, ,ve shall be saved from ,vrath through Ifin1,' v. 9. 'The judgment ,vas by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many. offences unto justi- fication,' ver. 16. "Vhere sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so nlight grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ,' VV. 20, 2 I . But although we nU1Y readily con1e to the conclusion, that justification by faith is little n10re than a synonymous expression for justification or salvation by free grace; yet ,ve can scarcely doubt that there is something in the nature of faith, which especially qualifies it to be put in a formula to denote grace in opposition to claÍ1ns. Now this would be the case if faith in the argU111ent of the Epistle to the ROlnans meant nothing more than 'tbe Christian Religion; , \vhich it sometimes appears to mean, especially in the Epistle to the Galatians. For, as the religion of Christ is that, by embracing ,vhich ,ve embrace God's offers and prolnises of pardon, it 111ight naturally ùe put to represent those pro1l1ises and that grace Ly ,vhich pardon is given. But ,ve can hardl5T conclude that this is the signification of justifying faith in the Epistle to the ROnl[lnS; because St. Paul especially adduces the case of .Abraham as a subject of justifying faith (I om. iv. I, &c.). But .A.braham could no rno1'e have been considered as justified by the Gospel or the religion of Christ, than any other persoll under the old dis- pensation; and could Dot have been sp8ken of as living under the Gospel, in opposition to such as lived under the Law. It should appear, therefore, that it. is not Christ's religion, considered as a ,vhole, ,vhich is meant by the Apostle whE'n he speaks of justifying faith,. but thf\t it is that special religious grace which is called faith, and t] e qualities of which ,ve have lately investigated. Accordingly we must search for son1ething in the nature of faith itself, or of its objects, \vhich renders it fit to be put in the formula of St. Paul, as the representative of grace, and as opposed to self-justifying clain1s. I. First, then, faith is a state of heart in V\"hich a 111an is, ana is not an enumeration of so 111any 'yorks or good deeds, which a lTIan has done, anJ for which he n1ay be supposed to clailn reward. It therefore fitly and naturally represents a state of grace, in con- tradistinction to a state of claim or self-justification. It is that state in ,vhich a man is ,vho is regenerate, and so in union ,vith SEC. Ir.J OF THE JUSTIFICA TIOX OF IAS. 307 Christ. Yet at the same time, as in the case of the penitent thief upon the cross., it may exist, even before it can have brought forth external good ,yorks, and therefore obviously cannot recom- mend us to God on the score of meritorious services ,vhich we have rendered to Hinl. It is therefore the symbol of acceptance by free mercy apart from human claims. 2. Next, its character is to rely on the power and promises of God, and not on the strength or works of man. For the eye of faith, seeing Him who is invisible, contrasts His power with its own weakness. Hence it beconles nearly identified with trust (fiducia). Such emphatically was the character of Abraham's faith, so specially referred to by the Apostle, which led him to leave his country and sacrifice his son, because' he counted Him faithful who had promised.' Hence faith becomes a fit s) mbol for renunciation of claims and deserts, and trust in God's mercy and pardoning grace. 3. Faith is, perhaps, even n10re than other graces, clearly and obviously the gift of God. ,Ve kno\v that ,ve cannot force or control our o,vn belief, and therefore feel that ,ve require the eyes of our understanding to be enlightened by inspiration from above. Therefore again faith is less likely than other graces to be nlade a ground for boasting. 4. Lastly, although this may not be its exclusive object, yet its peculiar and principal object is Christ, and His Atonement and Iediation. Hence, according to Luther, faith is 'full of Christ.' Hence, according to a greater than Luther, 'Christ dwells in our hearts by faith.' Hence faith, leading to Christ and looking to Christ, is, by a natural transition, spoken of in Scripture as if it were invested with attributes which are really aboye it, and as though it effected that of which it is but the instrunlent, and ,vhose cause and Author is God in Christ. rro the belief, indeed, that justifying faith, as spoken of by St. Paul, means merely a reliance on the Atonement, the often adduced instance of Abraham seems at first sight opposed. For Abraham, whom St. Paul brings forward as the type of justifying faith, is not spoken of, as having full confidence in the pardoning grace of Christ; but his faith, in the instance alluded to (Gen. xv. 5, 6), had reference to God's promise, that his seed should be as numerous as the stars of heaven. It ,vas this faith that 'vas counted to him for righteousness; and though it may be argued, that there ,vas in this pron1Ìse of God concerning his offspring virtually contained a promise of the Iessiah; yet it can hardly be x2 308 OF THE JUSTIFICATIOX OF 11AN. .[ ART. XI. said, that Abraham's belief, that G'od would multiply his seed, meant a belief that he should hÏ1nself be saved by the merits of Christ, and that, on this account, it \vas justifying faith. 'Ve JTIust then probably infer, that sorne of tbe general charac- ters of faith, above referred to, rendered Abraham acceptable to God; and that so his faith was counted for righteousness. And this consideration certainly causes some little difficulty in our appre- ciation of the doctrine laid down by St. Paul. Still, if we exalnine the ,vhole of his reasoning in the first five chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, we shall find that the great object, on ,vhich he speaks of the Christian's faith as fixed, is the Person and ,york of Christ, and God's acceptance of us in Him. Even where he adduces the example of Abrabam, and insists that Abrahan1 was justified, not by his o,vn merits, but by his faith; he concludes, that, in like manner, faith shall be in1puted to us for righteous- ness, 'if ,ve believe in Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who ,vas delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification' (Rom. iv. 24, 25). And the following chapter is all devoted to considering the reparation which the righteousness of Christ has made for the ruin ,vhich Adam's sin had produced. It appears, therefore, that the faith of Abraham must have been alleged, rather as illustrative of, than as identical with, the faith of the Christian. It was of the same kind with the Christian's faith, in so far as all faith has the same general characters, and has, therefore, a similar acceptabIeness with God. But the peculiar faith of the Ohristian is that by which he apprehends Christ. As the High-priest laid his h3nd upon the head of the scapegoat, and by confessing, conveyed the sins of the congregation to the scape- goat, that they might be taken away; so the believer lays his hand on the Head of the Great Sacrifice. He believes in the Redeen1er of the ,vorld, and in God's love throl1gh Hin1. His soul rests upon his Saviour. His faith therefore is a bond of union \vith the incarnate Godhead; and so becomes the instrumental CD use of j llS- tification in us; the meritorious cause of which is all in Christ.. And on this ground most especially it seems, that the Apostle, when labouring to show that human merit and human efforts must fail to bring us to God, and to render us acceptable to Hin1, produces, and insists so strongly on his peculiar statement of ' Justification by faith.' 1 1 This is excellently expressed in the following passage from Cardinal Toletus (in cap. Hi. ad Roman. annot. 17) quoted by Bp. Forbes, Considerationes .J.llodestæ; De Justificatione, Lib. I. c. iii. 17. Quia nempe in fide magis manifestatur, SEC. Ir.J OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF IAX. 309 IV. General view of Justification in Scripture. Having thus investigated the meaning of the ,vords fllstificatíon, faith, and of the forrl1ula Justification by faith, we may be able to state more fully and formally the doctrine of Scripture concerning justification, or pardon and acceptance ,vith God. "\Ve Inay say, then, in general, that, I. The 17loving cause is God's mercy. 2. The meritorious cause is Christ's atonement. But we kno\v that, notwithstanding the infinite mercy of God, and the fulness, and all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, yet all men do not, because they will not, profit by this grace. Therefore we learn, that there is need of something internal to connect with the external work of our salvation; Christ in the heart connect- ing with Christ on the cross; the work of the Spirit united to the ,york of the Redeemer. Hence, 3. The imnlediate efficient cause is the Holy Spirit, ,vho moves the heart by His influences, leads it to Christ, regenerates and renews. 4. The first instrument, by which God is said to convey pardon, under ordinary circumstances, is baptism. Hence our divines have been wont to speak of baptism as the first instru- ment of justification. The justice of this view ,vill appear from comparing the fol- lowing texts: ]'Iark i. 4. Luke iii. 3. lark xvi. 16. Acts ii. 37, 38; xxii. 16; where remission of sins is spoken of as given in baptism. See also I Cor. vi. I!. Eph. v. 26. Tit. iii. 5, 7. Rom. vi. 4, 7. Col. ii. 12, 14. I Pet. iii. 2 I. Baptism is that 'which places us in fonnal covenant with God, and so is, in St. Paul's ,yords, that whereby we 'put on Christ,' and are esteen1ed 'the children of God by the faith in Christ,' Gal. iii. 26, 27. Hence a person rightly receiving baptism is put in a position to receive from God the gifts, which He has cove- nanted to give us in His Son: and the first of these gifts is the remission of sins and acceptance into His favour, that is, justifi- cation. hominem non propria virtute, sed Christi merito justifieari: sieut enim in aspeetu in serpentem Deus posuit sanitatem in deserto, quia aspectus magis indicabat, sanari virtute serpentis, non operis alieu- jus proprii aut medicinæalicnjus; ita fides ostendit, ju tifieari peeeatores virtute et merito Christi, in quem eredentes f:alvi fiunt, non propria ipsorum virtute et merito. Ea causa est cur fiùei tribuitur (justifieatio) maxime a S. Paulo qui 3r justificatione legis opera et humanum meritum aut efficaeiam excluderp, et in sola Christi virtute et merito eollocare nitebatur ; ideireo meminit fidei in Chris- tum. Hoc nee pænitentia nee dileetio nee spes habent. Fides enim immedia- tius ac distinetius in Eum fertur, eujus virtute justificamur. 310 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF }IAX. [ART. XI. 5. The state of heart, in which a man must be, who is ac- cepted or justified, is a state of faith. Rom. x. 10. Eph. iii. 17. This is that ,vhich is "Tought in us by the Holy Spirit, whereby ,ve are enabled to accept ,vhat l1as been wrought for us by the Father through the Son. It is the internal condition connecting with the external \york. The act of God in sending His Son, and the act of the Son in living and dying for us, are both external to us. Ba ptism too, or God's accepting us as His children in baptism, is external to us, a work done for us. But faith is the condition of mind or soul produced in us by the Holy Ghost, placing us in the attitude of the recipients of God's bounty, enabling us to rely upon the merits of Christ. And thus, whereas justification, when considered objectively, is said to be of thè mere mercy of God, and to be purchased by the obedience' and sacrifice of Christ; so, when considered subjectively, it is said to be by faith, ,vhich receives God's mercy, and rests upon the atonelllent and nlediation of the Saviour. 6. 'Vhen a man is said by St. James to be justified y works, it is not because his works procure him acceptance meritoriously, but because they are the sign and fruit and necessary results of that \york by the Spirit, ,vhich unites hin1 to the ,vork of Christ, and are the necessary and inseparable conconlitants-or, in fact, parts-of his faith, as light is part of the sun, or as fruit is part of the tree 'v hich bears it. v. Certain questions on the Doctrine of Justification. I. Is justification an act or a state? Some persons have decided that it is an act, taking place at a particular moment, never to be repeated. Otbers, 'that it is a state, ,vhich continues or is lost, as the case may be. If it be the former, it must be limited either (I) to baptis'm, ,vhen, as has been shown, there is promise of remission of sins; or (2) to the moment, which may be considered as the turning point from a life of sin to a life of repentance, faith, and holiness-a. moment known only to God; or (3) to the day of Judgment, when the wicked shall be condemned, and the pious shaH be absolved or justified. Either, or all of these may be considered as the moment of transit.ion from condemnation to justification, or pardon and acceptance. But Scripture seems rather to represent justification, as a state of acceptance before Goel It is quite certain that sonle persons are represented as in favour, grace, or acceptance with God, that SEC. I1.J OF THE J-cSTIFICATIOX OF IAN. 311 is, justified; others as under His ,vrath, and liable to condemnation. The prophet Ezekiel (xxxiii. vv. I 2- I 9) contrasts the condition of the righteous and the wicked, showing the one to be a condition of acceptance, the other of condemnation; the forIner continuing so long as the character continues the same, and lost as soon as that character is lost; the latter in like manner continuing, until the ,vickedness is forsaken and the life renewed, and then giving place to the forrner, the condition of favour or pardon. In like lUanneI' our Lord (J Oh11 xv. I - 10) speaks of IIis disciples as clean through His "vord, and continuing so \vhilst they abide in Him; but if they abide not in Him, then to be cast forth as a branch, ,vithered, and even burned (see especially vv. 3-6). Language just sin1Ïlar to this is used by St. rauI (see Rom. vi. I, 2, 19; xi. 20, 2 I. Gal. v. 4. Co1. i. 22, 23. Heb. x. 38, 39). From all \vhich we can hardly fail to conclude, that justification before God is a state, in ,vhich a person continues, so long as he continlies united to Christ, abiding in IIim, having Christ dwelling in his heart, being the subject of His grace, and of the sanctification of the Spirit. If therefore the pren1Ïses are correct, we may define justification to be a state of pardon and acceptance in the presence of God, bestowed upon us freely for Christ's sake, by the nlercy of God, which is accepted by the faith that rests only on the Saviour, which continues so long as the subject continues in a state of faith, which fails ,vhen he falls from the state of faith, and which is restored again, when by grace and repentance he is restored to a state of faith. So that ,ve may say, whilst in a state of faith, so longin a state of justification: whilst a believer, so long ajustified person. lIenee too, concerning the distinction dra,Ýn by Luther, that faith is alone ,vhen it justifies, and that after justification is effected, then come in charity, and good works, and holiness, we may infer, that such a distinction can be true, only when considered in the abstract, but not as a matter of practical experience. For practically and really, where there is acceptance, there is faith and sanctification, and, springing from them and reigning with them, are all the graces of a Christian's life. 2. It having been laid down, that faith (fæt({ opc'ribus) may be considered, either as the staie or the instrnrnent of justification, it may be a question, whether we ought to say that faith, or faith and good works, or faith and holiness, are the condition or con- ditions of justification. The answer to this question, as given by many divines of high authority in the Church, bas been in the affirIllative. But the 312 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF lAN. [AnT. XI. question is, whether or not \ve can deduce an affirn1ative answer from the Scripture. No don bt, faith and holiness are, as regards justification, graces sine quibuð non. There is no justification nor salvation, where there is not faith, love, holiness, obedience. But when ,ve state that faith and good works are conditions, we in effect suppose the .....L\.lmighty to offer us 'v hat Lave been called the Ter11 S of the Gospel,. tern1S, that is, of the following kind: 'Now, that by Christ's lnediation God's ,vrath has been appeased, if you '\vill repent, believe, and obey, you shall be saved.' Conditions imply a bargain of this kind. Now there may be no objection to looking on the matter in SOl11e such light as this; but it does not appear to be the form, in which the Scriptures represent God's dealings with us. The New Testament seel1}S to speak of us as pensioners on the bounty of God's grace. Especially when justification by faith is spoken of, , it is of faith, that it n1Ïght be by grace,' Rom. iv. 16. And though it is true, that it '\vould be an act of immeasurable grace for God to pardon our past sins, on condition that, by His help \ve avoided sin and lived holily for the future; yet this does not appear to be the statement anywhere Inade by the Apostles; nor does such an act of grace come up to the standard of that infinite mercy of God in Christ Jesus, ,vhich is revealed to us in the Gospe1. It has already been sho\vn, that one peculiar reason, why justification by faith represents free salvation by grace is, that faith is itself 1110st clearly' the gift of God.' Therefore it is spoken of as the instrument of our justification, not because it is a condit1.'on ,vhich \ve can make with Him, but because it is itself a gift, which He besto\vs on us. TIesides, if we could make conditions \vith God, even after He had accepted an atonement for the past, it might be hard to say, that 'boasting' was altogether 'excluded' (Rom. iii. 27). Excluded indeed it 111ight be in strict justice, because the forgiving of past sins, and the accepting of imperfect obedience for the future '\vould be, of itself, an act of boundless grace 'v hen we deserve nothing but condell1nation. But still, comparing ourselves '\vith onrselve , ,ve might easily be inclined to be proud of ev"en inJperfect obe- dience if it ,vere made the condition of our salvation. rrherefore, we may perhaps fairly conclude, that salvation is not of works, not ll1erely not as the cause, but not even as the terms or conditions of our justification. Nor is faith itself the condition on which God accepts us, although it is the instrument by \vhich lIe justi- fies us, and the state in '\vhich we are \vhen justified. 3. vVhereas it is taught by St. Paul, that a man is justified by SEC. I1.J OF THE J"CSTIFICATION OF :MAX. 313 faitb, and yet it is taught both by St. Paul and throughout tbe New Testament, that we shall be judged according to our works; 1 are we driven to conclude, that there is an inconsistency in the statements of Scripture? The answer to this is, that, as aU persons who are justified are regenerate and in a state of faith, their faith and regeneration will necessarily be to them the source of holiness and good works. N o,v the clearest tokens both to nlen and angels of their internal condition of faith and sanctification must be their good works; nay, the clearest proof even to themselves. Hence, that they should be judged by their works, and rewarded according to their ,yorks, is thoroughly consistent ,vith God's dispensations. The meritorious cause indeed of their sahration is Christ's Atonement; the instrunlent by which they are brought into covenant with God is baptism; the means by which their state of acceptance is main- tained is faith: but the criterion, by ,vhich their final state \vill be determined, shall be works. And all these are so knit up to- gether in the redeenled, regenerate, believing, sanctified Christian, that it is no wise derogating fronl the excellence of the one to ascribe its proper office, in the economy of salvation, to the other. 4. The ordinary instruments of justification being baptism and faith, can a person be justified, ,,,here either of these is wanting? That persons can be justified without faith, where faith is inl- possible, nlay appear froln the case of infants. Though they are too young for active faith, 7et clearly are they not so for salvation, nor therefore for justification. Our Lord bids us bring little children to Him, and says that' of such is the kingdom of Heaven' ( Iark x. 14). And St. Paul says, the children of believing parents are holy (I Cor. vii. 14). And if infant baptism be a custom, for which we have sufficient authority, then, as baptism is for the ren1Íssion of sins, it follows that infants in baptism may receive ren]ission of sins or justification, though not yet capable of faith. Similar reasoning is applicable to the case of idiots, or persons otherwise irresponsible, who, like infants, are incapable of active faith, but of whonl 'we nlay reasonably hope, that they are not incapable of salvation. As regards baptism, that, as a general rule, it is the ordinance of God, without ,vhich we cannot look for the promises of God, is quite apparent from passages already referred 1 Sef', for instance, Iatt. xvi. 27; Rom. ii. 6; 1 Cor. iii. S; 2 Cor. v. 10; 1 Peter i. 17 ; Rev. ii. 23, xx. 13, xxii. 12. 314 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF IAX. [ ...LÌRT. XI. to, such as l\Iark xiv. 16. Acts xxii. 16. Ga1. iii. 26, 27, &c. In these and sin1ilar passages remission of sins is promised to such as believe the Gospel, and submit to baptism. Yet, as we have seen concerning faith, that though generally necessary, yet cases lllay and do exist, ,vhere it is inlpossible, and so not required: in like n1anner we may reasonably conclude, that cases may exist, in ,, hich baptism may be dispensed with. Though Christ has appointed baptism, and we have no right to look for His blessing if ,ve neglect it, yet we cannot presume to limit His mercy even by His own ordinances. Indeed \ve find in the Acts of the Apostles (x. 4, 44) a case, the case of Cornelius, in ,vhich God accepted and poured His Floly Spirit on a person "ho bad not been baptized; and though St. Peter thought it necessary, that baptism should be at once administered to him, and thereby taught us the deep value of that sacrament, still this case sufficiently sho,vs, that God does at times work without the intervention of means appointed by I-limself, and therefore teaches us, that we must not exclude fronl salvation those who, froln ignorance or inability, have not received the blessing of baptism. s. Is the language of St. James opposed to the doctrine of St. Paul? It has been already seen that St. Paul means by Justification by faith, free salvation by God's grace; and that where he speaks of faith as the instrunlent of justification, he means a lively faith, pro- ductive of good \vorks. (See especially Rom. vi.) St. J an1es probably wrote against such as abused the doctrine of St. Paul, and taught that a speculative barren faith, or mere orthodoxy, was sufficient for salvation \vithout the fruits of faith. Accordingly, he asks, 'Can this faith save him? ' He says, 'Faith, if it have not ,vorks, is dead, being alone.'! But it must be observed, that St. Paul never speaks of a dead faith as profiting. On the contrary, he declares, that faith without charity would be nothing (I Cor. xiii. 2). It is plain, 1 James ii. 14, 17. l\Iany people have endeavoured to re- concile St. Paul and St. James by sup- pORing that the former speaks of justifica- tion before God, the latter of justification in the sight of man. But it is quite clear that St. James speaks of the same kind of justification as St. Paul, from James ii. 14, 23. In the former verse he speaks of faith without words as not capable of saving a man; i.e., of course, of justifying him before God, for justifi- cation before man can never sa-reo And in the latter verse, he adduces the case of Abraham, as of one who had a faith which brought forth works, and says, it was this kind of faith which was imputed to him for righteousness, i.e., clearly before God. Evidently the two Apostles differ in their use of the word' faith,' not in their use of the word 'justify.' Both speak of jus- tification before God: but one says, that we are justified by faith, i.e., by a liring faith; the other denies that we are justi- fied by mere faith, i.e. (according to his own explanation), by a dead faith. SEC. II.J OF THE JUSTIFICA TIOX OF l\IAX. 315 therefore, that St. Paul considers faith as pregnant w'itb its results, though not as justifying because of its results, and does not design to put in opposition to one another faith, and the good works which naturally spring out of a lively faith, but rather faith and legal works-' the works of the Law'-works done in a self-justifying spirit, and looked on as meriting re".ard. Faith, therefore, he declares, justifies 'without such works-the " orks of the Law; but he does not say, that a faith, which does not bring forth the works of faith, will justify. On the other hand, St. J an1es asserts, that faith ,,,ill not justify, if it do not bring forth good ,yorks; but by good works he means evangelical ,yorks, the works of faith, not legal works, the works of the Law. Hence, there is no necessary contradiction in the language of the two Apostles. St. James sin1ply considers justifying faith, as including the works offaitll. St. Paul considers justifying faith, as excluding the works of the La'w. 1 1 Sine operibus fidei, non IE:gis, mortua est fides.-Hieron. in Ga1. iii. Ille dicit de operibus quæ fidem l,ræcedunt, iste de iis quæ fidem sequuntur.-Angnstin. Liber de dirersis Q-uæstionib'lls, Quæst. 76, Tom. VI. p. 68. ARrrIOLE XII. Of Good TV orks. De Bonis Opcríbus. ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justifica- tion, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; 'yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree di8cerned by the fruit. BONA opera., qnæ sunt fructus fidei, et justificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata nostra expiare, et divini judicii severitatem ferre non possnnt : Deo tamen grata sunt, et accepta in Christo, at que ex vera et viva. fide neces:o::ario prof1uunt, ut planè ex illis, æque fides viva cognoscÏ possit, atque arbor ex fructu judicari. SECTION I.-HISTORì . TIlE great length at which the last Article was considered renders it less necessary to say much upon this. Our present twelfth Article did not exist in the forty-two Articles of I(ing Edward's reign, but ,vas added in the year I 562, after the accession of Queen Elizabeth. It is evidently intended as a kind of supple- nlent to the eleventh, lest that should be supposed to teach Solifi- dianism. t\.rchbishop Laurence traces the \vording of it to a passage in the Wirtenlburg Confession, to which it certainly bears great resem blance. 1 The general object of the Article ,vas, no dOll bt, to oppose the Antinolnian errors, ,vhich had originated ".ith Agricola, and ,vhich there was some danger might spring from Lutheranism. 2 \Vith such the 'v hole Reformation ,vas charged by the divines of the Roman c0I111nunion, and therefore it ,vas the III ore needful, that the reforn1ers should protest against thenl. There are certain particular expressions also in the Article, ,vhich require to be explained historicalIy. \Ve have seen, that the school men talked of good ,vorks, done ,vithout the grace of God, Ineriting grace de cong1 uo. To this Luther and the refornlers 1 The pa age is : De Bonis Operibus. N on est aut em sentiendl1m, quod in bonis operibns, quæ per nos facimus, in judicio Dei, ubi agiturdeexpiatione pecca.- torum, et placatione divinæ iræ, ae merito æternæ salutis, cOIlfid Ildum sit. Omnia enim bona opera, quæ nos facimns, sunt imperfecta, nee possunt severitatemdivini judicii ferre.-Laurence, B. L. Notes ou Serm. II. p. 235. 2 1\losh. Oh. IIist. Cent. XVI. Ill. Pt. II. as quoted in the last Article. SEC. I1.J OF GOOD 'YORKS. 317 opposed the statement, that ,yorks done without the grace of God nlight be apparently, but were not reaUy good. And to this pur- pose is the thirteenth Article of our Church, which ,ve have soon to consider. Luther asserted, that good ,yorks, which are pleasing to God, are not ,vrought but in faith; for' ,vbatever is not of faith is sin;' and where there is faith, there is justification; therefore good ,yorks follow, not precede justification. Our Article uses this language, ,vithout in this place discussing the merits of it. In the thirteenth .Article the question is more fully entered on. It may be mentioned, that language very sÌInilar had before been used by Augustine, and from him very probably was it borrowed by Luther. 'Good works,' says that father, 'follow a man's justification, do not precede it in order that he may be justified.' I Another expression in the Article is that' good works cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgnlent.' In the historical account of tbe last Article we sa'v, that the Council of Trent condemned Luther for denying intrinsic goodness to works done after grace, and asserted that, as they were wrought by the Spirit of God, they were essentially good and perfect. The Council also taught, that to the justified God's commandments are possible, that justification is preserved and increased by good works, that the good works of the just, ,vhich are the gifts of God, are.' withal the merits of the justified. 2 "\Ve have seen also, that Bellarmine and the Romanist divines assert, that good works which are wI'ought in us by the grace of God, are, by virtue of that grace, meritorious of eternal life: 3 i.e., according to the schoolmen, they merit reward de condigno. The words of our Article are evidently opposed to these opinions. For though they speak plainly of the necessity and value of works wrought by grace, they declare, that 'they cannot put a\vay our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment.' SECTIOX lI.-SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 'VE may perceive, from ,,,hat has been said, that the Article opposes three doctrines. 1 Sequuntur opera bona justificatum non præcedunt justificandum.-.De Fide et Operibu8, c. 14. 2 Session VI. Canons 18, 24, 3 2 . 3 Bellarmine, De Justificatione, Lib. v. cap. 12, quoted in the History of Art. ÀI. 318 OF GOOD 'YORKS. [ ÅnT. XII. I. Ierit de congruo ;-11. Ierit de condigno ;-111. Anti- nOl1llanlSID. Or otherwise the Article teaches: I. That good ,yorks follo,v after justification: II. That, though they spring fron1 the grace of God and a lively faith, still they cannot put away sin and endure the severity of God's judgn1ent. III. Yet (I), That in Christ they are pleasing to God: and (2), That they spring out necessarily of a true and lively, i.e., a justifying faith, insolnnch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by its fruit. I. The question of merit de congruo and works before j usti- fication being the special subject of the next .Article, ,ve may defer its consideration till we consider that Article. II. That the good " orks of justified n1en are not perfect enough to put a,vay sin, and endure the severity of God's judg- 111ent, may be proved as follows: Our Lord tells us, that, after ,ve. have done all that is com- l11anded us, ',ve are still unprofitable servants, having done only that which ,vas our duty to do' (I uke xvii. 10). But, if this be the case, ho,v can \ve ever do anything to put a,vay our former sins? Our best deeds leave us still unprofitable; and if we had never sinned, we should still have only done our dut.y, and could claim no reward. But ,vhen ,ve have sinned, it is clear, that no degree of subsequent obedience (,vhich ,vonld have been due, even if we had not sinned) can cancel the sins \vhich are past. And to this \ye n1ust add that, even under grace, obedience is never perfect. 'In n1any things ,ve offend, all,' says St. James (iii. 2); and St,. John tells us that, 'if we say that \ve have no sin, \ve deceive our- selves' (I John i. 8). And Loth the Apostles are evidently speaking to, and of, regenerate Christians. The Psalmist prays God not to enter into j uc1gn1ent \vith him, because in His sight no man living could be j l1stifieel (Psalm cxliii. 2). Accordingly St. Paul argues, that the person, ,vho is blessed in Goel's sight, is, not the man ,vho lives blameless in the Law, but' he ,vhose iniquities are forgiven, and 'v hose sins are covered,' even' the man to ,vholl1 the Lord will not illlpute sill' (Rom. iv. 7, 8). 'All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; , and therefore must be 'justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Ohrist J esns ' (Rom. iii. 23, 24). Such passages fully prove that, in \vhatever strength SEC. 1r.J OF GOOD " ORKS. 319 or power good ,yorks are \vrought, they are not perfect enough to put away sin, and to endure the judgulent of God. Still, though the Church denies the 'lnerrit of good ,yorks, and their sufficiency to screen us from the wrath and endure the judgment of God, she yet teaches, III. (I), That,in Christ,they are pleasing and acceptable to God; and (2),That they do necessarily spring out of a true and lively faith. I. In Christ they are pleasing and accepta ble to God. (I) The words in Ch1"ist are introduced to remind us that, whatever is good in us, nlust spring from the grace of Christ, aUll \vhatever in us is acceptable to God is acceptable for Christ's sake. In all the servants of Christ, God sees the image of His Son. In all the members of Christ, God sees the Spirit ofRis Son, descend- ing from the Head to the members, like the holy oil on Aaron.s head, which flowed down to the skirts of his clothing. In all tbe branches of the heavenly Vine, God sees the fruit thereof, as put forth by the virtue of the life and nourishment derived from the 'Tine itself; and that .Vine is Christ. In every wedding-guest, \vho has on the \vedding-garment, the I(ing sees the wearer clothed in the robe of Iris own Son, and acknowledges thenl aU as His children; 'for we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ' (Gal. iii. 26, 27). Accordingly, the Scriptures constantly, \yhen they speak of Christians and the worksofChristiansaspleasing to God, teach us that it is ' in Christ.' So we read, 'There is now no condenlnation to them that are in Christ Jesus' (Rom. viii. I). 'In Christ Jesus neither circunlcision availeth anything, nor Ul1- circumcision; but faith 'which worketh by love' (Gal. v. 6). ' \Ye are His ,vorkmanship, created in Jesus Christ unto good works' (E phes. ii. 10). \Ve are to ' do all in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Co1. iii. 17). "\Ve are to ' offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ' (I Pet. ii. 5). 'Ve are to 'gi, e thanks always for all thiugs unto God and the Father in the nanle of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Eph. v. 20). By HÜll we are to 'offer the sacrifice of praise to God' (Heb. :xiii. I 5). (2) But then the good deeds, which Christians perform in Christ, are pleasing and acceptable to God. Our Lord tells us, that 'not everyone that saith unto Him, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven: but he that c10eth the will of His Father \vhich is in Heayen' (: ratt. vii. 2 I). He assures us of the reward of those who have left all for His sake, 320 OF GOOD 'YORKS. [ART. XII. that they shall receive a hundredfold, and eternal life (l\Iark x. 29, 3 0 ). He tells us that, 'if we forgive, we shall be forgiven; that if we give, it shall be given to us' (l\fark xi. 26; Luke vi. 37,38). He shows us by parables, that those, who of two talents make five, shall receive five cities; those who make of five talents ten, shaH receive ten cities ( Iatt. xxv. 14-30. Compare Luke xix. 12-26). lIe tens us that, at the judgn1ent day, they who have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the afflicted, shall be placed on the right hand, and go into life eternal (l\Iatt. xxv. 3 I -46). He tells us of' a prophet's reward,' and' a righteous n1an's re\vard' (: ,fatt. x. 4 I, 42). And, in short, assures us, that He \vill ' re,vard every man according to his ,vorks' (nlatt. xvi. 27). So, from His Apostles ,ve learn, that' in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him' (Acts x. 3 5): that the sacrifice of our bodies is 'acceptable to God' (Ronl. xii. I): that the labour of Christ's servants' shall not be in vain in the Lord' (I Cor. xv. 58): that' God loveth a cheerful giver' (2 Cor. ix. 7): that, if we are not"' weary in ,veIl-doing in due season we shaH reap, if we faint not' (Gal. vi. 9) : that our ne\v creation in Christ Jesus is ' unto good works, \vhich God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. ii. 10): that the new man' after God is created in righteousness and true holiness' (Eph. iv. 24): that our call' is not to uncleanness but to holiness' (I rrhess. iv. 7): that' everyone who nameth the name of Christ lnust depart from iniquity' (2 Tim. ii. 19): must' be careful to maintain good \yorks' (Tit. iii. 8): that' ,vithout holiness no man shall see the Lord' (Heb. xii. 14): that with' such sacrifices' for His service 'God is \vell pleased' (He b. xiii. 16): that' pure reli- gion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself un- spotted from the ,vorld ' (J as. i. 27) : that faith without ,yorks will not profit (ii. 14): that 'to do well and suffer for it, and take it patiently, is acceptable to God' (I Pet. ii. 20): that whatsoever ,ve ask of God we receive, if 'we keep His commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in His sight: ' and that 'he that keepeth His con1n1andn1ents dwelleth in Hin1, and He in him' (I John iii. 22, 24. Compare Rom. vi. passiln, Rom. viii. 1-14, and the concluding chapters of all St. Paul's Epistles). Thus \ve plainly see, that good ,yorks wrought in Christ are not only useful and desirable, but are absolutely necessary for every Christian, and are pleasing and acceptable to God. ' 'Ve do not take away the 1'eward, because we deny the me?'it of good SEC. II. ] OF GOOD 'YORKS. 321 works. 'Ve know that in the keeping of God's comnlandments there is great 'rell:ard (Ps. xix. I I); and that unto him that soweth righteousness there shall be a SUTe re'lf"a1yl (Prov. xi. 18). But the question is, whence he that soweth in this tuanner must expect to reap so great and so sure a harvest; whether from God's justice, which he must do, if he stand upon merit, or from His mercy, as a recompense freely besto'wed out of God's gracious bounty, and not in justice due for the worth of the work performed. 'Vhich question we think the prophet Hosea has sufficiently resolved, when he biddeth us sow to oU1'selz;es in 'rigläeousncss and reap in :MERCY (Hos. x. 12). Neither do we hereby any whit detract from the truth of that axiom, that God will give every 'Jnan according to his 'works; for still the question renlaineth the very saUle, ,,-hether God may not judge a man according to his works, when He sitteth upon the throne of grace, as ,,'ell as when He sitteth upon the throne of justice? And \ve think here, that the prophet David hath fully cleared the case in that one sentence (Psalm lxii. 12), , TVith thee, 0 Lm'd, is :MEllCY; for Thou rewardest everyone according to his work.' , Originally therefore, and in itself, \ve hold that this reward proceedeth merely from God's free bounty and mercy; but acci- dentally in regard that God hath tied Himself by His 'V ord and promise to confer such a reward, we grant that it now proveth in a sort to be an act of justice; even as in forgiving of our sins, which in itself all men know to be an act of mercy, He is said to .. be faithful and Just (I John i. 9), namely in regard of the faithful performance of His promise.' 1 rro conclude, then, the Scriptures prove, and the Church teaches, that, not upon the ground of merit, but yet according to God's will and appointment, good works, wrought in Christ, are necessary for every Christian, are pleasing and acceptable to God, and will in the end receive' great recompense of reward,' even that' crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give in that day' (2 Tim. iv. 8). 2. That good ,yorks 'do spring out necessarily of a true and living faith' is a proposition which may be considered to have been incidentally but fully proved in treating on the eleventh Article. It may therefore here be sufficient to refer but briefly to a few of the passages of Scripture in which this is most plainly set forth. 1 U ssher, A nsu:er to a Jesuit, ch. XII. y 3 ')') -' ...J OF GOOD \VORKS. [ART. XII. The sixth chapter of ROlllans throughout is an explanation, entered into by the Apostle, to show that his doctrine of justifica- tion does not supersede the necessity of good ,vorks; inaslnuch as justified persons walk in ne,vness of life, are made free from sin, and become servants of righteousness. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews is an enumeration of signal ,yorks of holiness, which ,vere produced through the energizing power of the faith by which the saints of old lived and acted. St. James, in his famous chapter ii. (vv. 14-26), explains at length that if faith be living, it ,yill necessarily bring forth ,yorks, and that if there be no ,yorks, the faith is dead. vVe read of being' sanctified by faith' in Christ (Acts xxvi. 18). God is said to ' purify the heart by faith ' (Acts xv. 9). Faith is said to be 'the victory ,vhich overcometh the world' ( I John v. 4). The faith which 'availeth in Christ Jesus' is called' faith which worketh by love' (G-al. v. 6). Perhaps the strongest proof of this proposition is that, in an those writings of St. Paul (especially in his Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians) where he peculiarly treats of faith, he passes directly from faith to speak of holiness, counselling Christians, as the consequence of his doctrine concerning faith, to bring forth good works. This we may observe in the latter chapters of both these Epistles, and indeed of all his Epistles. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews indeed, ,vhich professes to expla.in to us what faith is, does o almost entirely by giving a list of the ,yorks \vhich have sprung from it; just as one ,vho ,vished to describe the excellence of a fruit tree ,vonld d \vell chiefly on the beauty and goodness of its fruit. 'Ve n1ay be assured therefore, that ,ve cannot assign too high a place to good works, so long as ,ve do not assign to them the po,ver of 'lne] íting salvation. They spring from faith, and they feed faith: for the more faith is called into action, the brighter and the stronger it grows. And as in the bodily economy of n1an, good health gives birth to good spirits, and yet again good spirits support and invigorate health, so it is in his spiritual life. Faith gives rise to holiness, and holiness gives energy to faith. A R ' I 0 LEX I I I. Of TJTorks befm'e Justification. De Opcribus ante J ustificationcm. ,V ORKS done before the Grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as the)" spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; Jea rather, for that they are not done as God ha th willed and com- manded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. OPERA quæ fiunt ante gratiam Christi et Spiritus ejus affiatum, cum ex fiùe J eS11 Christi non prodeant, millime Deo grata. sunt; neqne gratiam, ut multi vocant, de congruo merentur; immo cum non sint facta, ut Deus illa fieri voluit et præcepit, peccati ration em habere non dubitamus. SECTIO I.-HISTORY. T HIS Article is intimately connected with the four preceding Articles, and is intended, probably, to prevent any Inistakes, and more ful1y to explain some points in thenl. In the former Articles an account has been given of IIlost of the errors against 'v hich this Article is directed; and the very wording of it shows that the scholastic doctrine of congruous merit is especially aimed at. Here, however, it may be proper to renlark, that the question has arisen concerning the nature of heathen virtue, a question of great difficulty, on ,vhich the fathers touched both before and after the Pelagian controversy. Clement of Alex- andria particularly speculated much upon the lllode in which God's grace and the teaching of Christ visited men before the coming of the Gospel. 'IIis notion was, that philosophy was given to the Gentiles by God, for the same purpose for which the Law ,vas given to the Jews; in order to prepare them for justification under the Gospel by faith in Christ.' It is certain, however, that Cle- ment did not believe that heathen virtue possessed of itself any efficacy towards justification. For he says that every action of the heathen is sinful, since it is not sufficient that an action is right; its object or aim must also be right.' 1 Indeed, these opinions of Clement do not seem to interfere at all with the doctrine of this Article; for Clement evidently con- 1 Bishop Kaye, on the 'Vritings of Clement of Alexandia, p. 426. See also pp. 122, seq. y2 324 OF 'YORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATIO . [ART. XIII. sidered that God mysteriously ,vorked in the Gentiles by His grace, using, as an external n1eans, the imperfect instrument of their own philosophy. So that ,vhatever good, he thought, might have existed in heathens, he still ascribed to God's grace, and therefore did not consider their goodness' as ,yorks done before the grace of Christ.' 1 vVe have already seen ho\v the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians 2 denied the necessity of preventing grace; and held that, in the first instance, God only called men by His word and ordinances, and that by their own strength such as \vere called might turn to God, and seek His assistance. In controversy they appear to have referred to the case of virtuous heathens, many of ,vhom might put to shame the lives of Christians. To J ulianus, who advances this argument, Augustine replies at great length. Augustine's position ,vas that 'what ,vas not of faith was sin.' J l1lianus supposes the case of a heathen, who covers the naked and does works of mercy; and asks, 'If a Gentile have clothed the naked, is this act of his therefore sin, because it is not of faith?' 3 Augustine replies that it is, 'not be- cause the simple act of covering the naked is sin, but because none but the impious ,vould deny that not to glory in the Lord on account of such a work ,vas sin.' 4 He then goes on to argue that a bad tree cannot bring forth really good fruit, that an unbe- lieving tree is a bad tree, and that apparently good works are not always really so, as the clemency of Saul in sparing Agag was sin. So he, \vho does unbelievingly, .whatever he does, does ill: and he who does ill, sins. 5 r.l he good ,vorks which an unbeliever does are the works of Him who turns evil to good. But ,vithout faith we cannot please God. 6 If the eye be evil, the whole body is dark; \vhence ,ve may learn, that he ,vho does not do good works with the good intention of a good faith (that is, of a faith which worketh by love), his whole body is full of darkness. And since the good works, or apparent good works, of unbelievers cannot bring them to Heaven, we ought to hold that true goodness can never .be given but by the grace of God through Christ, so as to bring a man to the kingdorn of God. 7 1 See Bishop Kaye, as above, p. 122, &c. 2 See History of Art. IX. and X. 3 Si gelltilis, inquis, nudum operuerit, numquid quia non est ex fide, peccatum est 1 4 Prorsus in quantum non est ex fide, peccatum est. Non quia per Be ipsum factum est, quod est nudum operire, pec- catum est; fled de tali opere non in Do- mino gloriari, solus impiu negat esse pec- catum.-Cont. Julianum, Lib. IV. c. 30. t) Cap. 31. 6 Cap. 3 2 . 7 Aut certe quoniam saltern concedis opera infidelium, quæ tibi eorum videntur SEC. I.] OF 'YORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 325 This was the kind of reasoning ,vhich the fathers of that day used against the Pelagian arguments, that truly good deeds might be done without the grace of God. l rrhe doctrine of the schoolmen concerning merit of congruity bore a suspicious resemblance to that of Semi-Pelagians. In the history of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh Articles enough has been said on the subject, and of the zeal with which Luther maintained the absolute necessity of preventing grace, in order that man should make any efforts or take any steps towards godliness. 2 The case of Cornelius (Acts x.) was often adduced in arguing in favour of merit of congruity. He, it was said, was a Gentile, and therefore not under the influence of God's grace; and yet it was told him, 'thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a nlemorial before God' (ver. 4). Hence it was argued that he did wbat was acceptable to God, though without the grace of God. Luther treats Cornelius as a man who had faith in a promised Iediator, although he did not yet know that the l\lediator was come; and so, he argues, that his good deeds ,vere of faith, and therefore acceptable. 3 At the Council of Trent the general opinion was strongly against Luther on these points. Catarinus indeed maintained, ,vith great learning, that' man, ,vithout the special help of God, can do no work which may be truly good, though l11orally, but sinneth still.' In confirmation of which he quoted Augustine, Ambrose, Prosper, Anselm, and others. He ,vas violently opposed by the Franciscans, but supported by the Dominicans. 4 In the end, the seventh canon of the sixth session of the Council condemned those who said, 'That works done before justi- fication are sins, and that a man sinneth the more, by ho\v much the more he laboureth to dispose himself to grace.' 5 vVhich canon does not exactly contradict the words of our Article, except it be in the last sentence of it. The Lutheran Confessions of faith speak very reasonably on bona, non tamen eos ad salutern sempi- ternam regnumque perducere: scito nos mud bonum horninum dicere, illam vol un- tatem bonam illud opus bonum, sine Dei gratia quæ datuI' per unum lediatorem Dei et hominum nemini posse conferri ; per quod solum homo potest ad æternum Dei donum regnumque perduci. Cap. 33. See also Augustine, De Fide et Operibus, w e e, in opposition to the Pelagian opmlOll that good works must be added to faith, he contends that good works spring from faith. I The reader may see many passages from Jerome, Prosper, and others, to the same effect, in Ussher's Answer to a Jesuit, ch. XI. 2 See especially Luther on Gal. ii. 16. 3 Luther on Gal. iii. 2. 4 Sarpi, pp. 18 3- 18 5. 5 Session VI. Can. 7, and Sarpi, p. 210. 326 OF 'YORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [ART. XIII. this subject. The twentieth article of the Confession of Augsburg states a principal reason for maintaining justification by faith to be that ,ye might Dot think to deserve grace by our own good ,vorks antecedent to grace.! Our own refornlers seem to bave been influenced by a very similar view. The Hon1ilies say that' 'without faith can no good work be done, accepted and pleasant to God.' , "Tithout faith all that is done of us is but dead before God; although the work seem never so gay and glorious before man.' 2 Again, 'As the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is good, but the tree lllust first be good before it can bring forth good fruit; so the good deeds of man are not the cause which nlaketh man good, but he is first made good by the Spirit and grace of God, that effectually " orketh in him, and afterwards he bringeth forth good fruits.' 3 'They are greatly deceived t.hat preach repentance without Christ, and teach the simple and ignorant that it consisteth only in the ,vorks of men. They may indeed speak many things of good works, and of amendment of life and manners: but without Christ they be all vain and unprofitable. They that think that they have done much of themselves towards repentance are so much the further from God, because they do seek those things in their own ,yorks and merits, \vhich ought only to be sought in our Saviour Jesus Christ, and in the merits of His death and passion and bloodshedding.' 4 SECTION II.-SCRIPTURAL PROOF. T HE subjects embraced by the Article are, 1. rrhat ,yorks before grace and the inspiration of the .Spirit are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they are not of faith. II. They do not make lllen nleet to receive grace de con[JTUO. III. Rather, as not being done as God hath willed, it is believed that they have the nature of sin. Of these three positions, the second must follow from the proof 1 Syllo[}c, pp. 13 0 , 13 1 . 2 First part of IIomily on Good JrorÀ:s. a Second part of the Ilomdy on Almsdeeds. 4 :First part of the Homily of Repentance. SEC. I1.J OF 'YORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICA TIOS. 327 of the first. For if ,yorks ,vithout grace are not pleasing to God, they cannot predispose to grace. As regards the title of the Article, ' Of 'V orks before Justification,' we may observe that it was probably adopted, because the question discussed in the Article itself went, at the time of the Reformation and the Council of Trent, under that name.! AJI questions concerning Inerit de congJ''llo, and works done before grace, were considered as embraced in the general term, 'the question concerning ,vorks before justification.' The Article itself says nothing aboutjustifi- cCltion. All that it determines is that, in order for wurks to be acceptable to God, they nl ust be done b)1" the grace of God, and must spring from a principle of faith. Against the \vhole tenor of the Article, and in favour of all ,vhich it condemns, the principal arguments from Scripture are such as these. Certain passages of Scripture seem to speak highly of particular individuals, \vho \vere not Christians or true believers, e.g., N aaman the Syrian, and Cornelius the Centurion. They had not the faith of Christ, and :yet their good deeds are approved. It nlay, however, be replied, that both of them evidently acted from a principle of faith. N aaman went to the prophet and sought relief, because he believed that, as a prophet, he had power to heal him. Again, Cornelius, though not a Je\v, ,vas evidently a believer in the One true God, a proselyte of the gate, if not a proselyte of rrighteo'llsness . and therefore we cannot say that he had no faith, nor that he ,vas without the grace of Gocl The same may be said of the Ninevites. Their repentance, it is argued, ,vas accepted by God; and yet they \vere heathens, and therefore not true believers. But it is certain that their repent- ance sprang froill their faith in Jonah's preaching, and 111ay very probably have been produced by that Holy Spirit, ,vho at all times has striven with men: and hence it was not of the nature of simple, naked, unassisted efforts to do good. A stronger argument against the doctrine of this Article seems derivable from the language of St. Paul, ROIn. ii. 14, 26, 27. There he speaks of the Gentiles as heathens, 'which have not a 1 IÆther had used this language, that a man was justified first, and then did good works: and so , works before justification' became a common expression. Our Church in the xIIth Article speaks of good work aa ' following after ju:,tification.' 'Ve are not, of course, bound to consider that every act of a man, who is not in a state of full anctification, is therefore devoid of goodness, and of the nature of sin. This Article sufficiently explains both its own meaning and the meaning of the phra.se, , follow after justification,' in the xnth Article, viz., that no works are good which do not come of grace. 328 OF 'YORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [ART. XIII. la,v,' and yet' do by nature the things contained in the Law,' and so 'are a la,v unto themselves.' And he says, that, 'if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not His uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the La,v, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law? ' Here the apostle seems to speak as if the heathen \vho had not the revealed knowledge of God's will, yet might so do His will as to be acceptable ,vith Him. In like manner, many learned men of the Reformed Commu- nions, as 'v ell as of the Roman, understand St. Paul's reasoning in Gal. iv. to be like what ,vas shown in the last section to have been the opinion of Clement of Alexandria-viz., that before the Gospel both Jews and Gentiles were kept by God in a state of bondage or tutelage, ,vaiting for the liberty of the children of God; that to the heathen their condition 'vas one of elementary servitude, preparatory to the Gospel, as ,vas that of the Jews. If the first seven verses of this chapter be compared carefully with the eighth and ninth, there will appear some ground for such an interpretation. From these passages it is argued that heathens, ,vho could not have faith, and were not subjects of grace, were yet capable in their degree of pleasing God. To this reasoning ,ve may reply that nothing can be more obscure than the question as to God's dealings with, and pur- poses concerning, the heathen ,vorld. Revelation is addressed to those whom it concerns, and tells us very little of the state of those to whom it is not addressed. Our business is to follo\v Christ, and not to ask, 'Lord, and what shall this man do?' There is a marked purpose in Scripture not to satisfy man's idle curiosity. The question therefore, at tinles so much debated, ,vhether it be possible or impossible, that the benefits of Christ's redemption should reach to those mIllions of human beings \vho never have heard and never could hear of Him, is left in deep obscurity; and ,vhen people have reasoned on the subject, their arguments have mostly been inferences deduced from other doctrines, and not express statements of Scripture. This much, however, we may fairly conclude, that if the pas- sages just referred to prove that the heathen can do what is pleas- ing to God, and be accepted by Him, it is because His Holy Spirit can plead with them, even through the inlperfect means of natural religion. St. Paul says it was God's will that men 'should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him' (Acts xvii. 27). And SEC. 11.J OF 'YORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATIO . 329 he is there speaking of the world in its tinles of heathen darkness. It is possible that there may have been an imperfect faith, even 'in times of ignorance which God winked at.' We know not, but that they who touched but the hem of Christ's garment may have found virtue go out of it. But with regard to the teaching of our Article, ,ve may fairly conclude that it rather refers to the case of persons within, not ,vithout, the sound of the Gospel. This is the practical question. It does not concern us practically to know ho,v it may be with the heathen; although, of course, their case affects the general question. And the case of the heathen is so obscure that we can hardly be justified in bringing it to throw light on a case which concerns ourselves and our own state before God. But it may be further said, that God approves of justice, and temperance, and charity in themselves, and of themselves; and therefore if a man, who has neither faith nor grace, acts justly, and does mercy, and lives soberly, God must approve and be pleased with such acts, just as He would disapprove and hate the contrary. But, in reply, it is urged, that God sees the heart, and loves ,vhat is good in us only when it springs from a good source. Indeed, there are some sinners much greater sinners than others, whom He will visit with ' greater damnation.' But, though in them- sel ves He loves justice and mercy, He does not love and accept the man who does them unless that lllan does them from right Illotives; and as 'every good and perfect gift is from above,' 've infer that good motives cannot come but from Him, , who ,vorketh in us to will as well as to do according to His good pleasure.' The man' dead in trespasses and sins' must have life given him from above, before he can walk in newness of life, and do what is ,vell pleasing in God's sight. Having thus considered the principal objections, \ve may no\v proceed to prove our propositions. 1. And first, , Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith.' The language concerning the new' birth may come in here. John iii. 3: 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- dom of God;' the language of our Lord to His disciples, John XY. 5, '"\Vithout fe ye can do nothing;' and the language of St. Paul concerning the state of the unregenerate and carnal mind, , In me, that is, in my fle h, d\velleth no good thing,' Rom. vii. 18. 330 OF 'YORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATIO . [ART. XIII. 'The carnallnind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God,' ROIn. viii. 7, 8. All these and many siulilar passages ,vere con- sidered at length under Article IX.; and they surely prove that the natural man, ,vithout the aid of God, cannot bring forth fruits ,vhich are pleasing to God. As our Lord says expressly, , Abide in 1\le, and I in :rOUe As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in :\1e,' John xv. 4. 1 But, nloreover, as it is taught us that the source of all true holiness is faith, so if our works do not spring from faith, they cannot be pleasing to God. Thus,' without faith it is impos- sible to please God,' Heb. xi. 6. 'The just shall live by faith,' Rom. i. 17. Nay! we are even told that' \vhatsoever is not of faith is sin,' Rom. xiv. 23; and that evidently, because apparently good works, if not springing from a good source, are not real1y good. Hence the statement of our Article seems fully borne out, that ' \vorks done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasnluch as they spring not of faith.' II. The second proposition follows from the first: viz., that ,vorks done \vithout grace do not make men meet to receive grace de cong'J'llo. If they are not acceptable to God, it is manifest that they cannot procure grace from Him. It is true that' the La\v of the Lord is an undefiled la\v, converting the soul,' and that he who strives earnestly to fulfil God's commandulents may always expect to have his exertions assisted by fuller supplies of the grace of God. 2 But this is because God loves to re,vard His grace in us by further gifts of tbat grace-because all those ear- nest strivings are, in themselves, proofs of the Spirit of God ,vorking in us. Good \vorks are in 110 degree to be under-rate4: and the more a man does of theIn, the more he is likely to gain strength to do more. This is the regular course of gro\vth in grace. Even naturally, good habits are acquired by performing good actions; and spiri- 1 The reader may refer to what was said under Art. x. on :Free 'ViII. 2 On thi:; principle it is that, 'If any man will (00'17) ùo the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God,' John ,'ii. 17. 'God resisteth the proud, but gi\'eth grace to the humble,' I Pet. v. 5. SEC. I1.J OF " ORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATIO . 331 tual1y, those that use the grace of God find it increasing in them. But this is quite a distinct view of the case from that taken by the lnaintainers of congruous merit. Their doctrine s, that a man, ,vithout any help from God, and by a strong effort of his own win, can so fulfil the commandments, as, though not of actual right, yet, on a certain principle of congruity, to draw down the grace of God upon him. Scripture, on the contrary, seems to teach that every attempt of this kind is displeasing, as being the result of arrogance and self-sufficiency. The Pharisees, who thought then1selves not blind, are told, that that ",-ras the very cause of their condemnation, whereas, if they were aware of their own ,veakness, they should receive their sight. 'If ye ,vere blind, ye should have no sin; but no,v ye say, \Ve see; therefore your sin remaineth' ( John ix. 4 I). The Jews are spoken of as cast off and blinded, because they sought to find their ,yay to God, alid to attain to righteousness, through the works of the La,v, and through their own righteousness, instead of by the faith of Christ (see Rom. ix. 30, 3 I); for they , \vere ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their o,vn righteousness, they did not subn1Ït themselves to the righteousness of God' (Rom. x. 3). III. The Article concludes by saying that, forasmuch as such ,yorks 'are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.' \V orks done in self-righteousness, done with a view to justify ourselves by our own merits, are not done as God hath willed, but in a ,vrong spirit and temper; and therefore, proceeding from a bad principle, must be bad. There may be in such works a n1ix- ture, as there often is, of good with the bad motive. This God alone can see, and will approve the good, whilst He disapproves the bad. ì\Iany a person tries to do right, acting in ignorance, and on the principle that such a nIode of action is what God has appointed, and what He ,,"ill reward. Such a person may have very inlperfect knowledge of the truth, and 111ay not be sufficiently aware of his own weakness, and his own need of Divine strength. But mixed with such errors there n1ay be pure principles of faith and desire to serve God; and God, yv-ho sees the heart, may give more blessing to such a person, than to many a better instructed Christian. The Article, however, may be quite right, notwith- standing, in saying tnat works, not springing from grace, and not done in faith, have the nature of sin. As a general proposition, it 332 OF 'YORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATIOK. [ ART. XIII. is true that 'whatever is not of faith is sin.' And the spirit which leads a man, instead of relying on God's mercy in Christ, and seeking the aid of His Spirit, to rely on his o\vn unassisted efforts, is also sin. It is a virtual denial of human infirmity, of the Atonement of Christ, and of the need of the Spirit. Again, the only thing ,vhich makes good works to be good is the fact that God has commanded them. Hence, if we find even apparently good ,yorks not done in the way and for the end to which God has ordained them, we are justified in saying tbat they are not good ,vorks, but bad works. The passages quoted from the Homilies in the former section show sufficiently that this was what the reformers meant bv the words of the Article. 01 ART IOLE XIV. Of U"'ol'ks of Sltpererogation. 'T OLCNTARY works, besides, over and above God's commandments, which they call works of Supererogation, cannot be taught withoutarrogancy and impiety: for bv them men do declare that they do not o lly render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, \Yhen ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, 'Ve be unprofitable servants. De Operibus Supererogationis. OPERA, quæ supererogationis appellant, non possunt sine arrogantia et impietate prædicari. Nam illis declarant homines, non tal1tum se Deo reddere, quæ tenentur, sed plus in ejus gratiam fa cere, quàm de- berent, cum apertè Christus dicat: Cum feceritis omnia quæcunque præcepta sunt vobis, dicite, servi illutiles sumus. SECTION I.-HISTORY. T HERE is nothing in the earliest fathers which bears much on the subject of this Article, unless it be that they appear to have attached more than due importance to martyrdom. Thus the baptisln of blood ,vas considered equivalent to baptism by ,vater; and some, perhaps, appear to have ascribed merit to it, such as to cancel sins. HernIas, for instance, speaks of the martyrs, as having 'all their offences blotted out, because they have suffered death for the name of the Son of God.' 1 And again says of them, ,vhen compared with the rest of the redeemed, that they have' some glory above the others.' 2 And so rrertullian says, that' all sins are forgiven to martyrdolll.' 3 But with reference to the last-named writer, it has been clearly shown that, with all his high esteem for martyrdom, he expressly maintained that it ,vas in1possible for martyrs to have an excess of holiness a10ve what 'vas required, as not being in themselves sinless. It wås the custom in his days for persons who had lapsed in perserution to be restored to the communion of the church, at the intercession of martyrs and con- fessors; a custom which was often much abused. 1'7"riting on this subject, Tertullian says, , Who but the Son of God can by His own death re1ieve others from death? He, indeed, delivered the thief at the very moment of His passion; for He had come for this very 1 Simil. IX. 29. 2 Vis. III. 28. 3 Omnia buic operi delicta donantur.-..Apol. sub fin. 33-1 OF WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. [ART. XIV.. end, that, being himself free from sin and perfectly holy, He might die for sinners. You then, who imitate Christ in pardoning sins, if you are yourselves sinless, suffer death for n1e. But if you are yourself a sinner, ho\v can the oil out of your cruse suffice both for you and me ? ' 1 In this adn1iration, however, of the early Church for martyr- dom, and in the admission of the intercession of the n)artyrs for the deliverance of others fron1 church-censures, we may perhaps trace the germ of the doctrine of 'works of supererogation. 2 In the respect \vhich they paid to virginity ,ve may find another source for the same error; for it is \vell kno,vn that they gave the fullest latitude to those ,vords of our Lord and of St. Paul, in ,vhich they speak of celibacy as a favourable state of life for the developn1ent of Christian graces, and for devotion to the service of the Cross. On this subject especially St. Paul writes, , Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give n1Y advice' (I Cor. vii. 25); De virginib'lls autC7r/; lrræceptu1n DO'1nini non !letbeo, sed consilium do. From this expression it ,vas very early inferred that the Scriptures ll1ade a distinction between p1'eCept8, 'which are binding on all III en, and counsels, ,vhich it is desirable to follo,v, but 'which are not obligatory on the conscience. Thus St. Cyprian, speaking of celibacy, says, 'The Lord does not comn1and this, but exhorts to it. He lays not on a yoke of necessity, ,vhen the free choice of the will remains. But whereas He says, that in His Father's house are many mansions, He points out the 'way to the better mansions.' 3 St. Augustine writes, , It is not said, Thou shalt not lnarry, as it is said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill. The latter are exacted, the former is offered. If the one is observed, there is praise. If the other is neglected, there ,vill be condemnation.' 4 And St. Jerome distinguishes bet\veen a pre- 1 De Pudicitia, cap. 22. See Bishop Kaye, Tertullian, p. 33 6 . Like this is the language of Augustine, quoted by Bp. Beveridge on this .Article: I tsi f ratres pro fra tri bus morian tu r, tam en in peccatorum remissionem nullius san. guis martyris funditur, quod fecit Ille (i.e., Dominus Christus) pro nobis.-Au- gust. in J oh. Tract. 84. 2 Rogare legem, to propose a law. Ero- gCl're, to ma.ke a law for paying a Ulll of money out of a public treasury. So the word is used for lending or paying out. Hence supererogare, to pay over and above. In Luke x. 35, 7rpOCíÔC1.7ravá.w is in the I Vulgate supererogo, to spend more.- Hey, Vol. III. p. 403. 3 Nee hoc jubet Dominus sed hortatur-: nee jugum necessitatis imponit, quanJo maneat voluntatis arbitrium liberum. Sed cum habitationes multas apud Patrern suum dicat, melioris habitaculi hospitia demonstrat; habitacula ista meliora vas petitis, carni5 desideriacastl'antes, majoris præmium in cælestibus obtinetis.-Cypt'. de lInbitu Virginum, p. 102. 4 Non enim sicut }./o11, mæchaberis non occides, ita dici pot est non nubes. Illa exiguntur, bta offeruntur. 8i fiunt ista, lauùantur: ni:5i fiunt illa, damnantur. In SEC. 1. ] OF 'YORKS OF SUPEREROGATIOX. 335 cept and a counsel, as that the one involves necessity of obeaience, the other leaves a liberty of accepting or refusing.! The distinction thus early made may have had a legitimate foundation in Holy "r rite But, in process of time, there grew out of it the doctrine of works of supererogation, as connected with a belief in the merits of n1artyrdom and of voluntary celibacy. The increase of monasticism, and the increasing respect paid to every kind of ascetic observance, cherished this belief. In the language of the Confession of Augsburg, 'The monks taught that their n10de of life ,vas a state of perfection, because they observed not precepts only, but counsels also. This error is greatly at variance with Gospel truth; for thus they pretended so to satisfy the commands of God as even to exceed them. And hence arose the grie\-ous error, that they claimed merits of supererogation. These they applied to others, that they might be satisfactions for other men's sins.' 2 The full-grown form of the doctrine was, that a n1an may not only keep the law of God, so as to do all that is actually enjoined on hiln, but Inay be so full of the grace of God as even to do more than God's law enjoins, and thereby deserve even more than his own salvation. This excess of n1erit, which ,vas supposed to be attained by some of the greater saints, formed a deposit, which was entrusted to the Church, and ,vhich the ROIl1an Pontiff, the vicar of Christ, could for reasonable causes, by the power of the keys, unlock, and grant to the faithful, in the way of indulgences, and for the remission of t81nporal punishment. In the Council of Trent, the last decrees read and approved were concerning the granting of indulgences. The Council anathe- n1atized those "ho said they ,vere unprofitable; and, though forbidding their sale and other abu es, yet cOIDlnanded that they should be retained as profitable for Christian people. 3 There is no express mention of ,yorks of supererogation. i11is Dominus debitum imperat vobis; in his autem si quid amplius snpererogave- ritis, in redeundo reddit vobis.-August. De Sancta Virginitate, cap. 30, Opera, Tom. vI. p. 355. 1 Ubi consilium, ibi offerentis arbi- trium, ubi præceptum datum, ibi neces- si tas est servientis. Hieron. ad Eusto- chium, De Ser'Vanda Yi1"ginitate. So in the Sermons De 'J'emp01'e, ascribed to Au- gustine, Sermon LXI. De Virginitate dicitur, Qui potest capere, capiat. De justitia non dicitnr, Qui potest facere, sed Omnis arbor, quæ non facit fructum bonum, exscindetur, et in ignem mittetur. See these and some other passages quoted by Bellarrnine, De 11fonachis, Lib. II. cap. 7, 1 [. Tom. II. pp. 3 6 3, 380. The words of St. Chrysostom are much to this purpose on Rom. viii.: ol 7rVEvp..a- 7LKol 7T'ávra 7T'párrOVuLv brLOvp.,lq. Kal 7T'ó(JCfJ, Kal roûro Ô1]ÀOÛUL rqJ f..aì iJ7rEpßaí- VHII rà irrrorá-yp.,ara. Thus rendered by Bp. J ere Taylor, 'Spiritual men do their actions with much passion and holy zeal, and give testimony of it by expressing it in the uncommanded instances.' -Rule of Conscience, II. 3, 12; which see. 2 S!Jllnge, p. 223. 3 Sarpi, p. 575. 336 OF " ORKS OF SUPEREROGATIOX. [ART. XI"\T. It is scarcely necessary to add, that aU the reformed Churches and sects, of whatever class or denomination, have rejected the doctrine of the Ronlanists concerning works of supererogation. SECTION II.-SCRIPTURAL PROOF. T HE principal arguments in favour of the doctrine of the Roman Church on this subject may be found in the writings of Car- dinal Bellarmine, in the second book of his treatise De lonachis. He assumes the principle, a principle which, rightly understood, need not be controverted, that in some passages of Scripture advice is given, ,vhere there is not a positive command: and then he infers that, ' as our Lord distinguishes counsels from precepts, He plain] y sho\vs that men justified by the grace of God can not only fulfil the la,,,, but even do some works most pleasing to God ,vhich have not been commanded.' 1 Now this inference may fairly be considered a petitio principii: for advice, \vhen coming from our Lord or His Apostles, may be a connsel tending indeed to spiritual good, but yet, if follo\ved, not enabling to do more than is commanded, but only putting in the road to obtain more grace and strength from above. Bellarmine, besides referring to several passages of the fathers, some of ,vhich have been already quoted, brings for,vard very nlany texts of Scripture to prove his position. The greater nunlber of these appear so little relevant, that I shall make no apology for considering those only which appear to have SODle 'weight. I. The first, which we may mention, is the counsel given by our Lord to the nlan who caIne to Him, and asked, , Good !laster, ,vhat good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' Our I.Jord first replies, 'Keep the commandments.' rhe young man then says that he has kept all t ese from his youth, and adds, , \Vhat lack I yet? ' Jesus said unto him, , If thou ,vilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven: and come and follow le.' 2 Bel1armine 1 Oontrot'ers. General. Lib. IV. De lndulgentiis, Tom. III. p. II24. Dominus cons ilia a præceptis distinguens, ostendit posse homines justificatos per gratiam Dei non solum implere legem, sed etiam aliqua alia opera Deo gratissima facere, quæ imperata non sint. He quotes especially the case of the young man, latt. xix. 16, &c. 2 Iatt. xix. 16-21. SEC. Ir.J OF " ORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 337 argues, that this last sentence of our Lord's could not have been a command, but ,vas a counsel of perfection, which, if obeyed, ,vould have been more than ,vas the young man's duty-i.e., a 'work of supererogation. This he proves as follows: It 'vas not a precept; for to the question, , 'Yhat shall I do that I nlay have eternal life ? ' the answer is, , If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' Therefore, the keeping of the commandlnents would be sufficient for salvation. And the advice after\vards given tended to perfection, not to salvation. 1 But if we attentively consider the whole conversation, ,ve shall see that this interpretation will not satisfy the case. In the first place, the young Ulan asks, , "\Vhat good thing he should do to have eternal life ;' to which our Lord gives the general reply, that' if he would be saved, he must keep the commandnlents.' rfhe young 111an, evidently not ill disposed (see 1.Iark x. 2 I), but with an undue notion of his own strength and goodness, then says that he has kept all the comnlandn1ents from his youth, and, as though he could see no deficiency in his own conduct, asks again, , 'Vhat lack I yet?' Now it was to this question, '"\Yhat lack I ?' that our Lord gave the reply no,v under consideration. That reply, therefore, was in- tended to show the young man what he lacked; and if he lacked something, it is quite clear that the supplying of that lack or defi- ciency could not be a work of supererogation, but was a work of duty or obligation. This is further proved by the conduct of the ) oung nlan, who, when he heard our Lord's reply, 'went away 1 Lib. II. De Jlonachis, cap. 9, Tom. II. p. 368, &c. The cardinal replies to many argu- ments which have been brought against his interpretation of this history-e.g., St. Jerome and Bede considerf'd the young man's question as a tempting of our Lord, but Chry:"ostom refutes this opinion by showing that none of the Evangelists blame him, and Bellarmine adds that St. )Iark (x. 21) says that , Jesus beholding him loved him.' Calvin (II/st. Lib. n-. cap. 13) had argued that our Lord could not have placed perfection in selling all things, since in 1 Cor. xiii. 3, we read 'though I give all my goods to ft-'ed the poor. . . . and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.' Calvin also ob- serves that the young man could not really ha\'e kept all the commandments, for ont' is, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy GOII with all thy heart,' &c. ; and he who does this will give up everythin , and therefore, of cour:5e, all his wealth, for Him. Peter :l\Iartyr, too, had said, that it could not be a cuunsel, but a precept, when our Lord said, 'If thou wilt be per- fect, 8ell all that thou hast';' for in :Matt. v. 48, 'Be )'e perfect,' is a precept; and therefore whatever teaches us to be perfect must be of the nature of a precept also. To this Bellarmine tries to reply that there are different kinds of perfection, some necessary for salvation, but a hibher degre for a higher grn,de of glory. P. J\Iart\-r also sa \'S that this command \Va!'; given to the y ung man alone, and that therefore it wa necessary for his perfec- tion, but not for e\'ery one's, for he is perfect who obeys God's laws. Bellarllline answers, No! The command was, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the com- mandments ; J this was addressed to all. So we ought to infer that the saying, 'If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou ha:-;t,' was equally addreF:sed to all. He quotes Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, as 3grceing with him in this view. Z 338 OJ!' 'YORKS OF SUPEREllonATIOX. [ .A.HT. XIV. sorrowful.' That is to say, he felt not able and willing to do what our Lord had said \vas needful for him to do. He had asked what ,vas necessary for his salvation. The first answer gave him satis- faction; for it did not fully convince him of his weakness. The second probed hinl to the quick, a.nd sho,ved hin1 that the strength of purpose, 'which he supposed himself to possess, ,vas not such as to lead hinl to renounce all for the kingdom of God. And so, when he had gone a\vay sorro,vful, our Lord does not say, a rich man shall hardly becoille perfect, or do ,vol'ks of supererogation: but He says, ' Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kin!Jdol1 of Heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter rinto the lcingdmn of God.' It ,vas unfitness for the kingdom of Heaven, not unfitness for a supereIninent degree of glory, which the rich man showed, ,vhen at our Lord's bidding he could not sell nIl that he had. Whence it appears, that this saying of our Lord's was a pre- cept, and not a counsel. It was like the command given to Abrahaln to kill his son. It was a trial of his faith, and of his readiness to obey. 'fhe faithful servant of God \vill give up alI, even that he loves the best, for Him whom he serves. Abraham's dearest treasure ,vas his son, and he was ready to sacrifice him. The young nlan's treasure was his \vealth, and he ,vent a\yay sorrowful. The one was sho,vn to be true and firm in the faith. The other's faith ,vas proved to be doubtful and \vavering. Bellarmine, however, further contends that, \vhereas it fol1ows in the 28th verse, 'Peter answered and said unto Him, Behold \ve have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?' if the cOlllmand was only given to the young man, and not to all men, then our I...Jord would have said to Peter, , I will giv'e nothing to you, I spoke only to this youn!5 man' (.1.Vihil vobis dabo, na17L soli illi inveni locut1./;s sU1n); ,vhereas the ans\ver actually given is (A1ìMn dico vobis, J.c.) , Verily I say unto you, that ye \vho have followed Ie . . . shall sit on t\velve thrones. . . and erc'ry one 'Yho hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or ,vife, or children, or lands, for ly sake, shall receive an hundred- fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' The cardinal's conclusion is, therefore, that to all DIetl it is a P1"CcCpt, 'keep the commnnd- nlents,' and to all nlen it is a counsel, 'sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.' The Apostles obeyed the precept and the counsel both, and so did more than their duty; the raung Ulan kept only the precept, and so 'Won Heaven, but not more than IIeaven. SEC. Ir.J OF \YOnKS OF SUPEREROGATIO . 339 There is evidently a fallacy here. 1\0 doubt, it IS not con1- manded to all men to sell all that they have; for St. J>aul bade Timothy' charge those who are rich in this wOTld' (not to sell their possessions, but) 'not to trust in uncertain riches,' 'to do good, to be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to com- municate' (r Tin1. vi. 17, 18). But though all men are not expressly called to sell all that they have, yet at the tin1e of our Lord's presence upon earth, He did can all His imn1ediate fol- lowers to give up everything for His sake; and the n10st obvious and decided way of giving proof of zpal for His service and love to Him, was to forsake parents and brethren, house and lands, and to follow Him ,vho had no place to lay His head. 1 f}'hus, as Abraham evidenced his faith by being ready to slay his son, so the Apostles evidenced theirs by forsaking their homes; and tbe rich young n1an could not find it in his heart to sacrifice so much, because his faith was not so true. Here is no room for ,vorks of supererogation, nor even for counsels of perfection. 2. Another of Bellarmine's proofs 2 is drawn from I Cor. ix. ; in which St. Paul asserts, that he might have réceived payment for his ministry, that he might have led about a wife at the expense of the Church; but that he would not do anything of tbis kind, lest his glorying should be made void. Taking the Latin version as his guide, Bellarmine reasons, that though St. Paul might have fulfilled all his duty, if he had taken payment of the Church, yet he would not take reward that he might obtain greater glory. And he argues against Peter lartyr (who interprets the glo1'Ùl1n of ver. I 5 to mean' glorying before men ') that St. Augustine had written, Bonum- est magis rnihi rn01 i, q'lla'ln 'llt glorianL rncam qllis C'L"ac'Uet. Quant glo1'ia?n J nisi qual1L habere vol'llit apl1d De'll1n in Ch1'isto? 3 But, pace tanti viri be it said, that the Greek word is KaúXYJfJ.a, which means boasting,. and that a greater than St. Augustine has writt n that' no flesh should glory ( or boast) in God's presence.,4 The passage in St. Paul can hardly mean anything but . this: that whereas he, as an Apostle, had a right to be chargeable to the Cilurch, he had Tet refused to be so, that he might have the more influence for good over those among whom he ministered. I \Ye must remember t.hat there was a perfectly general precept to this effect: , He that loveth father or mother mure than Ie is not worthy of Ie,' Iatt. x. 37. And again, 'If any man come to Ie, and hate not his father :md mother, and wife aud children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be Iy disciple,' Luke xiv. 26. 2 TOIll, II. p. 3 ï 8. 3 Lib. de Opc1'e Jlonaclwru1Jl, c. 10. 4 I Cor. i. 29. Compo Rum. iii. 2j; iv. 2. Eph. ii. 9. z 2 340 OF 'VORI{S OF SUPEREROGATIOX. [... RT. XIV. As he says in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter, 'Though he ,,"'as free fron1 all men, yet he 111ade hinlself the servant of all, that he nlight gain the 11101'e.' Thus he \vas able to boast that he had cost them nothing; and they therefore could not charge hitl1 ,vith avarice or private vie\vs. To make his glorying in this respect void, ,vould have been to deprive hin1 of his influence over them, and therefore of that power to do good which lay so near his heart. 3. But the most cogent argument frolll Scripture, in favour of .works of supererogation, is drawn from the passages in \v hich our IJord and St. Paul, \vhilst highly honouring marriage, yet give the preference to a life of celibacy. The passages in question are J\Iatt. xix. 10, I 1,12, and 1 Cor. vii. passin), especially 7,8,25- 28, 32-40. On the first passage, Bellarmine observes, that to live a life of celibacy cannot be a precept, because of the high conln1endatiún \vhich our Lord had just bestowed upon matrinlony, and yet, he says, it is evident that it had a re\vard in Heaven because our Lord declares that 'some have nlade themselves eunuchs' (i.e., have lived a life of celibàcy) 'for the kingdonl of Heaven's sake,' and then adds 'He that is able to receive it, let him receive it' ( Iatt. :xix. 12). In like manner, 011 I Cor. vii. he observes. that the advice to abstain from marriage is evidently a counsel; and that it is a counsel of not merely human ", isdom, but proceeding from the Spirit of God; \vhich he fully proves fronl vel's. 25, 40, \vhere the Apostle declares that, though there had been 'no commandnlent of the Lord,' yet he gave bis judgrnent as one \vho had' obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful,' ver. 25; and that in thus giving his judgment, he felt assured that he had the Spirit of God, ver. 40.1 Luther, be says, only admitted a temporal advantage to be attached to celibacy, and such has been the exposition of many Protestants-viz., that so a man Inay escape cares and anxieties, and that especially in time of persecution. Against such BeIlar- mine quotes the words of St. Augustine, 2 \vho truly lllaintained that the ...lpostle spoke of spiritual as "ell as temporal benefits to be derived fronl celibacy. From Luther, Bellarmille passes to )Ielancthon, \vho ,vent 1 [j"OKW õÈ KÇlì'W IIvfû/La efOíì lXftv, wh re, according to thf> well-known usage of St. Paul and others, OOKeLV is far from implying doubt. 2 Dc Sancta rÚ'yinitate, c. 13. Uncle mirabiliter desipiunt, qui }?utant hujus continentiæ bonum non esse nf>ces arium propter rf>gnuIll cælorum, sed propter præsens 8æculum, quod scilicet conjugia terrenis curis pluribus atque arctioribus distenduntur, qua. molestia. Yirgines et continentes carellt, &c. SEC. 11.] OP 'YORKS OF SUPEREROGATIOX. 3-11 further than Luther, and admitted that some spiritual good n1Ïght be derived frolll an unmarried state, such as more freedom and tÍme for praying and preaching. l But to the temporal benefits ac1Initted by Luther, and to the spiritual benefits allowed by :JIelancthon, Bellarmine adds a third-viz., to please God and obtain greater reward. He observes that the ,vorc1s propter instantenL necessita- ten", 'because of the present distress' (ver. 26), do not mean that ,ve may escape present troubles, but that they rather mean, p'poptel" b1'evitate1ì te1ì'lporis, , because of the shortness of the tinle ; , as it is said (vel'. 29), 'but this I sa: T , brethren, the time is short.' Against :ßIelancthon he says that in vel'. 34 the ..Apostle commends the state of an unll1arried fenlale, saying, that 'she careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; , and that this shows that virginity has of itself a sanctity both of body and spirit, according to the ,vords of Jerome (lib. I. Oontra JO'l,'inian.): llla vÚ:;initas lwstia.l Ch1'isti cst, c'UJus nee 1JZentcln eogi- tatio, nec ea1"l1Æ1n libido maculant. From vel'. 35, ,vhere St. Paul says, he speaks thus' for that which is conlely,' ad id quod honest'llu,", est, Bellarmine argues that the Apostle calls continence a thing J!.ßr se honestam, et dCC01Y{1n et p1"oindc Deo caram, 'a thing in its own nature cOll1ely and honourable, and therefore dear to God.' And again, in vel'. 40, the words' She is happier if she so abide,' he says, plainly mean, she will be happier in the ,yorld to conle. 2 Now., in this reasoning of the distinguished ROlllanist divine there appears a considerable mixture of truth and error. Let us adll1it, as we cannot doubt, that the Apostle wrote under the guidance of the Spirit; let us admit that he gave a connsel, not a ]J1'ecept,. for plainly it is no conlmandnlent of God that men should not 111arry, but only that they should' abstain from fornication.' Let us adluit, that both our blessed Lord and St. Paul spoke of abstaining from lllarriage, for the sake of SOllie al1vantages which an unlllarried life has, as regards spiritual enlploYlllents and spiritual llleditations. The divines of our own comnllu1Ïon have admitted this as freely as those of the Ronla n Church. s There seems no reason to doubt that botl our Lord and St. Paul speak of sonle to whon1 a peculia.r gift has been given, and who can by living 1 In locis, cap. de Castitate. 2 Be tior autem erit si sic perman- 8érit, iJ est, ut exponit, in futuro sæculo. Bellarmine treats of )Iatt. xix. Contro'l-'. Gener. Tom. II. p. 367. Cf. I Cor. vii. Tom. II. p. 373. 3 For example, see Ep. Burnet on this Article, and lilner, Hist. of the Church, Cent. I. ch. XI. ; Cent. II. ch. VIII.; di- vines of a school peculiarly disinclined from any concessions to the Romanists. On the proper distinction between pre- cepts and counsels, the student may read with great advantage Bp. Jer. Taylor, Rztle of Conscicncc, Book II. ch. III. Rule 12. 3-12 OF 'YORKS OF SUPEREIlOGATIO . [ART. XIV. unmarried devote tbemselves more unreservedly to the work of the Gospel a.nd the service of the Lord. Iarriage brings \vith it the anxieties of family and \vorldly business, and n1any of those' cares of this life,' which may, if not checked, choke the good seed. From all such celibacy is free. Therefore, though marriage be a state ordained of God, yet some, thinking to give their whole lives to religious employments, have abstained from 111arriage, 'have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdo1ll of I-Ieaven's sake;' and such a determination, in such as are' able to receive it,' our Lord has honoured with His sanction, 'Let him receive it.' And so it is ,vith the counsel of St. Paul. He tells us that' the time is short; it ren1aineth that they that have wives be as though they had none . . . that they \vho use this world be as though they used it not; 1 for the fashion of this world passeth away.' Accordingly, to such as have the gift of continence he gives bis advice, that it may help them on more in their course of godliness, if they continue to live a life less burdened \vith the cares of this world, than is the ]ife of those who are united in n1arriage. Such a life is not indeed to be commended to all men, and the Apostle carefully guards himself against forcing the conscience, or 'casting a snare upon' the1!). But it is a life wbich has many advantages. rrhe unmarried have nothing to do but care for the things of the Lord; whilst the married cannot but be anxious to please, not only God, but the partners of their earthly pilgrin1age. 1Iuch therefore as there is of blessing in the married state, honourable as it is in all men, and a KOLTl'} àp.{a VTOÇ, a state undefiled; still those \",ho have contracted it are, like :Jlartha, necessarily' cumbered about llluch se ving:' \vhilst the unma.rried, like 1\lary, have Dlore leisure to 'sit at the feet of Je us,' able to ' attend upon the Lord without distraction.' 2 Therefore it is that the Apostle counsels an unmarried life, because of 'the present distress;' because, it lTIay be, of the distress and anxieties of this present life, which are much ul1favourable to the attainments of holiness, and which especially beset those 1vho are tied in the bond of matrimony. 3 rrhis exposition will fairly satisfy tJle language both of Christ and of His Apostle. But \ve deny that St. Paul, \vhen instituting 1 I Cor. vii. 31: 'As though they used it not,' ws P.7} Karaxpw.J.lÆlIOL. Kara- xpâ68aL here probably signifies to use. Compo 1 Cor. vii. 31 ; ix. 18. 2 I Cor. vii. 35. In the words 7rpÒS rò V7rpÓ6EÓpOll rctJ Kvpl'r' å7rf:puJ'7ráurws, it has been thought that St. Paul esve- cially alludes to '::\Iary sitting at Jesus' feet.' Luke x. 39. 3 [Propter instantelll necessitatem.] Id est, præsentis vitæ solicitudinem, quæ lIlultum potest obesse jllstitiæ, et qna præcipue juncti matrimoniis implicantur. , -Hieron. in I Cor. vii. SEC. II.J OF 'YORKS OF SUPEn.ErrOGATIO . 343 a comparison between marriage and celibacy, speaks of the latter as having more Jnerit than the former; or that the one shall ensure a higher place in Heaven than the other. It may be to some persons a state n10re favourable for growth in grace, though, for obvious reasons, it may be a snare to others. Bnt, as marriage is a thing holy in itself, so we do not learn that celibacy is holier. , One is not a better chastity than the other. :ßIarriage is a KOLT1] dp..tavToç, an undefiled state, and nothing can be cleaner than that ,vhich is not at all unclean.' 1 And therefore, though we fully admit the honour due to a holy celibacy, :ve yet deny that it has any merit at all, as nothing in man can merit from God; and still JIlOre do we deny, that it can have merit of supererogation. 2 The above are the only arguments from Scripture, adduced by Bellarmine, which can be considered as of weight or importance; and ,ve may therefore fairly consider that, in answering them, we have shown that Scripture does not countenance the doctrine ,vhich our fourteenth Article conden1ns. It remains to show that there are passages and statements in the Scriptures directly at variance with that doctrine, and utterly inconsistent with it. I. In the first place, Scripture shows that all men, even those under the dominion of grace, are still imperfect and full of infirmity. David says that 'there is none that doeth good, no not one' (Ps. xiv. 3); St. James says that' in many things we offend all ' (Jas. iii. 2); and St. John says that' if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves' (I John i. 8). But if it be true that all men have sinned, and 'in n1any things offend,' then it is quite clear that no man can be so perfectly holy as not only to fulfil all GOll'S law, but even to exceed it. Anc1 as the Psalmist spoke, in the fourteenth Psalm, 'to those that ,vere under the Law ' (see 1 Jer. Taylor, as above. .A passage, not noticed hy Bellar- mine (De l1Ionaclâs), may Seem to coun- tenance the doctrine, that the sufferings of the saints were beneficial, not only to themselves, but to the Church; and that therefore their merits were more than enough for their own f:al vation. The pas- sage is Co1. i. 24. "Yho now rejoice in IllY sufferings for you, and fill up that which i behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the Churoh.' But if we carefully consider the passage, we cannot suppose that the Apostle means that there was anything deficient in the sufferings of Christ, or that His infinite merit;;; needed addition from the sufferings of His servant. The true meaning ofthe passage isthis : Every servant of Christ has need to be cOllformefl. to the likeness of the sufferings of his Lord. St. Paul considered that there was somewhat lacking in him, that there wa somewhat yet behind of ' the afflictions of Christ,' before he could be thoroughly con- formed to His likeness; and earnestly de- siring to be made like his Lord, he gladly took every additional trial as only bringiug him nearer to His image; and all these trials he endured for thesakeoftheChurch which he served, and to which he preached the Gospel of Christ. There is no men- tion of vicarious suffering on the part of St. Paul, of supererogatory merit, or of addition to the full, perfect, and sufficient . acrific of Christ upon the Cross. 34-1 OF 'YORKS OF SUPEHErrOGATIOK. [ART. XI'T. Rom. Ill. 10, 19), so St. J aIlies and St. John evidently spoke to those who \vere under grace; as the \vhole context evinces. Hence we must conclude that, even under grace, no man lives actually spotless in God's commandments. 2. But even if we could live \vholly without spot, and never offend in thought, ,vord, or deed, even so our Lord teaches us, that such a spotless obedience ,vonld still leave us undeserving of reward. 'vVhen ye shan have done all those things \vhich are commanded you, say, 'Ve are unprofitable servants: \ve have done tl]at \vhich was our duty to do' (Luke xvii. 10). 'Vhat room is tberethen for the doctrine ,vhich teaches that a n1an nlay do enough for his salvation and attain to glory by keeping the precepts, and then by observing counsels nlay nlerit still more? Even if we coulçl. keep all the pre- cepts, we should be unprofitable, having no right to re\vard, but merely to exemption from punishment l Something more than obedience to precepts is required, even for salvation; and where then is t.he foundation on which to build still higher nlerit? 3. Again, in the parable of the Ten Virgins, \vhen the five foolish virgins found their oil fail, they are represented as going to the wise virgins, and asking to borro\v oil from them. But the \vise answ'ered that they had not enough for tbemsel yes and others too, showing tbat DO one can have holiness or grace enough to supply another's deficiencies, out that eåch one must seek pardon and grace for himself (ThIatt. xxv. 9). 4. Then the precepts of the Gospel are so full and compre- hensive, that everything, even the highest degree of perfection, is contained in them. Under the Law, indeed, if the letter only ,vas observed, the statutes contained but a certain express catalogue of duties; but the spiritual sense of the La\v, as enforced by our Saviour, enjoins such an entire surrender of all the faculties of the body, soul, and spirit, to the service of Christ, that nothing conceivable can exceed or overpass it. This \vill be quite apparent if we read our Lord's exposition of the Law, in the Sermon on the 1Iount ( Iatt. v. 27, seq.), ,vhere a thought or a look of evi.1 is deadly sin; or His declaration, that no one can be His disciple \vho hates not his nearest friends and his own life, if need be, for 1 Quod sub præcepto est, si non im- pleatur, punit. Impletulll morte tantum caret; quia nihil ex se dat, sed quod debet exsolvit.-Hiel'on. in I Cor. vii. It is true that the divines of the Ro- man communion always presuppose that it is the atonement of Christ which gives dficacy and merit to the work:; of the aintf::. But we must remember that our Lord, in the passage from Luke xvii. 10, poke to His own disciples-those ver'y saints who are supposed not only to have merited life, but to have bid up a store of good works, more than was needed for their sal nltion. SEC. II. ] OF 'YORKS OF SUPEREROGATIOX. 345 Christ's ervice; or His summary of the commandments- un- bounded love to God, and perfect love to lllan ( Iatt. xxii. 37, 3 8 , 39); 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy C od ,vith all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all th) mind; and thou shalt love thy neiO'hbour as thvself.' "\Ve cannot conceive either saint or angel ð 01 LJ l110re perfect than this; and yet all this is cOl1I1nanded-is of the nature of a p1'eccpt, not of counsels only. The language of St. Paul's exhortation is equally strong; that ,ve present ourselves , as living sacrifices to God' (Roln. xii. I), that ,ve 'cleanse our- selves from an filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God' (2 Cor. vii. I); 'finally, whatsoever things are true, ,vhatsoever things are honest, ,vhatsoever things are just, 'whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things' (Phil. iv. 8). Can anything go beyond these things, ,vhich it is our duty to do? But if any man seem to be contentious, St. Peter te11s us, as a plain command, to ain1 'to be holy as Christ is holy' (I Pet. i. I 5, 16); and Christ Himself concludes His teaching concerning the strict and spiritual nature of the La\v, with the words, 'Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect ' ( Iatt. v. 48). Till, then, we can learn that God's grace has eyer made man as perfect as God, ,ve can never believe that man has ever fuBy lived TIp to the P1'cccpls of the Gospel. 'Vhere is the room for higher graces still ? 5. Lastly, we may observe, that the ,vhole of the doctrine of 'Works of supererogation arises from a false vie\v of the principles of Christian obedience. If we look for merit, it must be to Christ. Christian obedience is not a task of so much ,york to be done and so n1uch reward to be expected. "Then it is sound and perfect, it springs from a true faith and a holy love. And as no degree of perfection can excel the obedience which would be yielded by perfect love, so nothing can excel that holiness at which every Christia.n is bound to aiIl1. The obedience of the Gospel is not the task-work of a slave) but the perfect freedom of a son. A RTIOLE XV. Of Ch1'ist alone without Sin. CHRIST in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except; from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His Spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of Him.self once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as St. John saith) was not in Him. But all we the rest, a]though baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Nerno præter Cltristwn est sine Pcccato. CHRISTUS, in nostræ naturæ veritate, per omnia similis factus est nobis, excepto peccato, a quo prorsus erat immnnis, tunl in carne, tum in spiritu. Venit ut Aguns absque macula., qui mundi peccata per im- molationem sui semel factarn, tolleret, et peccatum (ut inquit Johannes) in eo non erat : sed nos reliqui etiam baptizati, et in Christo r<<:>generati, in rnultis tamen offen- dimus omnes. Et si dixerimus quia pec- catum non habemus, nos ipsos seùucimus, et veritas in nobis non est. SECTION I.-HISTORY. r I 'HE history of the greater part of the doctrine contained in this Article may be considered as involved in the history of some of the preceding Articles, especially of the ninth. 'Ve spoke there of the Pelagian heresy, and observed that Pelagius held that it was possible for a man, even without the grace of God, to keep God's La\v, and live a life of perfect holiness. St. Augustine, ,ve saw, in his arguments against Pelagianism, still expressed un,villingness to discuss the question of the sinfulness of the blessed Virgin 11ary, out of reverence to her Son and Lord. Pelagius had held that it \vas necessary for our religion, that \ve should confess the Virgin to be sinless (i.e., that we might not hold our Saviour to be born in sin). bt. Augustine ans\vers: 'Con- cerning the Virgin !rIary, I am not willing for the honour of our Lord, to hold any dispute, when we are talking about sin. For ho\v do we know what more grace was bestowed on her to ov'er- corne all sin, \vho had the honour to conceive and bring forth Him who certainly had no sin?' 1 1 .August. De Natura et Gratia. 'Van, Inf. Bapt. Vol. I. p. 404. The passage from Augustine is from c. 42, Tom. x. p. 14+ : Excepta itaque saneta virgine Iaria, de qua propter honorem Domini null am p!'orsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quæstionem. Unde enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiæ collatmn fuerit nd vin- cendrun omni ex parte peccatum ? &c. SEC. I.] OF CHRIST ALO E \VITHOUT SIX. 347 This scruple, which early prevailed about the Virgin, in the course of years grew into a doctrine. But for a length of time the doctrine was privately held, not publi(!]y expressed. In the year I I 36 the. Canons of Lyons brought the doctrine of the Im- maculate Conception of the Virgin into the ecclesiastical offices; for which act of rashness they were severely censured by St. Bernard. In the middle of the thirteenth century lived Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the schoolmen; he admitted that the Virgin .l\Iary might have been preserved from actual sin, but strongly maintained that sbe was not free from original sin, and argued that, if she had been without such original taint, she would have needed no Saviour, and so Christ ,vould not have died for all men.! About A.D. 1300, Duns Scotus, another famous schoolman, strenuously maintained the total exemption from sin of the Blessed Virgin, and grounded it upon the omnipotence of God, who could free her from sin, if He chose. 2 Thenceforward the Scotists and Franciscans ever advocated the dogma of the Immaculate Con- ception; whilst the Thomists, and until the present century the Dominicans, ever opposed and rejected it. 3 In the Council of Constance (A.D. 14 I 4- 1418) the proposal to make a decree in favour of the Immaculate Conception fen to the ground; but at the Council of Basle (A.D. 143 I) it was pro- nounced to be a pions opinion, and the festival was ordered to be observed. 4 But this Council never ,vas accepted by the Pope and the Ron1an Church. Up to this time, then, the middle of the fifteenth century: the doctrine lacked support of Scripture, of fathers, of the most illus- trious divines, of Councils, and even of Popes. Its chief support was from visions and dreams. In the Tear 1476, Pope Sixtus IV., himself a Franciscan, in ðrder to avert pestilence arising fronî inl1ndations of the Tiber, established the Feast of the Conception at ROIDe. This was the signal for another outburst of controverRY; but still the doctrine gained grounc1. At last came the long expected Council of Trent. At the Council of Trent this question was hotly debated; the Franciscans excepting the Virgin from all taint of sin, the Domi- nicans labouring to comprehend her name under the common law. 1 Summa Theolog. P. I. Qu. 27, artt. I, 2, 3, 4. 2 Duns Scotus in Sent. Lib. III. dist. 3, Qu. I, 9. 3 Sarpi, Council of T'l'ent, p. 178. 4 Bess. XXXVI. Labbe. ConcH. Tom. XII. p. 623. 348 OF CHRIST ALOXE \VITHOUT SIS. [.A,RT. XV. The Pope cOlnn1anded that the contention on the subject should be ornitted, for fear of causing a schism. Both parties acquiesced in silence, on the condition that when the decrees were made, it should merely be added, that there "-as no intentiol! to include the Blessed Virgin in the decrees concerning original sin. 1 It was therefore left an open question; although the Franciscans had the better reason of the two parties to be satisfied. Still the controversy ,vent on. The progress of opinion in the Churches \vhich adhered to ROIne after the Reformation ,vas in favour of the doctrine. In Spain it easily obtained general assent. Still, however, the Don1Ïnicans held fast, and at times resisted. The most rapid progress has been l11ade in the present century. Gregory XVI. had frequent requests to decide in favour of the doctrine, but, \visely foreseeing the danger, he only gave larger permission to use the office at the festival. The greatest step of all ,vas taken in 1843, when the General of the Dominicans, that body which had till then always opposed the doctrine, asked perlnissioll in the nan1e of his Order, to adopt the service which had been in use an10ng the Franciscans at the festival of the Conception. Then on the 2nd of February, 1849, Pius IX. issued an Encyclical to all bishops of his comulunion asking their judg- Inent on the question. The answers ,vere given ,vith wonderful un:tnimity, very fe,vobjecting to the pro1l1 ulgation of the doctrine. Accordingly, on December 8th, I 854, the Pope solemnly pro- nounced and defined the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin :ßIary, and issued the famous Bull "Ineffabilis," ,vhich declares the decision of the Church, and stamps ,vith heresy all who dissent. 2 It ,vas decreed in the Council of Trent that all the taint of original sin is washed away in baptislll; 3 and the Lutherans were condemned for saying that God's commands ,vere 'not pos- sible to be observed even by the justified.' 4 Fron1 these canons of the Council it might naturaUy follo\v, that a person baptized and justified n1ay fully keep God's cOlnn1ands, and live a life. of spotless holiness. But ,vhat is even nlore to the purpose still, is the TIomish doctrine of works of supererogation. }--'or, if such ,yorks are possible, it 111USt first be possible that he who does them 1 Sarpi, pp. 164, 169, 171. 2 I examined at some length the argu- ment from the fathers in favour of the Immaculate Conception in A Charge to the Clergy and Churckwa1"dens of the Diocese of Ely. Longmans, 1869. AppE'n dix C. 3 Sess. v. Canon 5. .4 Sess. VI. Canon 18. SEC. I. J O:E' CHRIST ALOXE " ITHOUT SIX. [3-17J should be perfectly sinless. Otherwise he could not do, not only his duty, but nlore than his duty. .A_ccordingly this Article of our Church, , Of Christ alone without Sin,' follows imnlediatelyon that concerning 'V orks of Supererogation. The one is very pro- bably intended as a supplement and strengthener to the other; so that, whereas in the last Article it was said that no man can do more than God's law requires, so in this it is added, that no man in this life can ful1y live up to its requirements, but all offend nlany times; and no e, even of the baptized and regene- rate, is quite free fronl sin. r,rhat part of the Article, which alleges that Christ was free from sin, need not be considered historically, for none but those who deny His Divinity can deny His sinlessness. And the greatest heretics, even mere HUlllanitarians, have respected the Saviour as a pure and holy Being. [348J OF CHHIST ALONE 'VITHOUT SIN. [ART. XV. SECTION lI.-SCRIPTURAL PROO:B'. THE subjects t.reated on in the Article are, 1. 'rhat Christ 'vas without. sin, although in all other things made like unto us. II. That all other men (even though baptized and born again in Christ) yet offend in many things. I. That Christ, though a perfect man, was yet free from sin, properly forms a part of the doctrine of the Incarnation, alid is therefore intiuHltely connected with Article II. The eternal Son of God, the second Person in the God- head, took into that Person the perfect nature of man. That nature of man had become defiled and debased. And it was that He might purify and restore it, that 1-Ie took it into Himself. But the question is, whether, when He took the nature, lIe 'was obliged to take its corruption ,vith it. If so, 'we n1ay ,veIl believe that the Incarnation 'vould have been impossible. God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. J\Iuch less can we suppose that God would take iniquity and corruption to Himself, into union with His own spotless purity and holiness. But though human nature, in all naturally engendered of Adalll, is stained with the sin of Adam, yet sin is not a part of human nature, but a fault of it. l The l\Ianichæans held that matter 'was essentially evil, and so human nature was evil, because matter was a part of it. But matter as well as spirit comes from God, and so is of itself, like all His creatures, 'very good.' Sin, therefore, 'which we all inherit, is a corruption and evil addition to our natu;re, not an essential and integral part of it. 'Vhether it consists in a ,vithdrawal of the indwelling and presence of God, and a conse- quent rebellion of the lower principles of man's nature,2 or whether 1 The ianichees held that sin was a natura non a culpa-i.e., because they th0ught one portion of our nature (i.c., the body) essentially evil. But the fathers taught that it was not TfjS cþú(jf.WS, àÀÀà 7'fjs KaKfjs 7rpOO-LpÉ(jf.W'5: 'not of nature, but of an evil determination of the will: ' (See History of Art. IX. note.) And our ninth Article teaches, not that it is part of our nature, but' the fault and corrup- tion of our nature.' 2 Ian's corruption consists, first, in SEC. l1.J OF CHRIST ALONE 'VITHOUT SIN. 349 there be 1110reover a kind of taint or poison, which, working in him, produces sin, and renders hill1 liable to death; in either case original sin is not human nature, but an accident of that nature; a quality as distinct from humanity as is any particular bodily disease, such as madness, or consumption, or neuralgia. When therefore Christ took our nature, it was not e sential to its perfection that He should take our sinfulness. Sin not being a part, but a fault of nature, He might be ' made in all things like unto us,' even though sin were excepted. Our liability to sin, indeed He must have taken; for else He could not have been' in all things tempted like as e are.' Adan1 had a liability to sin and therefore was susceptible of tempta ion, before he was actually guilty of sin, and so defiled and corrupted by it. And Christ, who was the second Adam, who came on purpose that He might conquer where Adam had fallen, and so restore that nature which Adam had debased, was, by the constitution of that nature which He adopted, liable to be assailed by the same danger.s that Adam had been assailed by. But His own essential holiness and the supporting power of His Godhead enabled Hirn to endure temptation, and so Inade it impossible that He should fall under it. Thus He became a fit representative of our race, as much as Adam was. He had an our nature, with all its natural weak- nesses: and all that He lacked, was that, ,vhich was no proper part of, but only a vicious addition to our nature-viz., our sin. Nay, He even condescended to take our sicknesses. He was liable to hunger and weariness, and death. l\Iany indeed of our sick- nesses are the natural results of sin, of gluttony or intemperance, anger or passion. These He, ,vho had no sin, could not have. Yet He took, not only human nature, but mortal nature; and, though He was too holy to defile Himself ,vith our sin, yet lIe was not too glorious to su bruit to our death. The passages of Scripture which prove this part of the doctrine of the Article are sufficiently numerous and familiar. Thus it is announced to l\Iary, 'That Holy Th1:ng ,, hich shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God' (Luke i. 3 5). ' The prince of this world,' saith our Lord, 'hath nothing in 1\1e' (John xiv. 3 0 ). He was 'the Holy One, and the Just' (Acts iii. 14). God' nlade Him to be sin for us who knew no sin' (2 Cor. v. 2 I). 'lIe was in the. deprivation of the Di vine guidance vluch he has rejected, for 'the light shined 11l darkness, and the darkness cornpre- henùed it not ;' and secondly, in the cor. respondent rebellion of the lower prin- ciples of his body and his sou1.- \Yilbu- force on The Incarnation, p. 74. 350 OF CHRIST ALO E 'VITHOUT SIN. [ ÅRT. X'T. all things ten1pted like as \ve are, yet \vithout sin' (lIe b. iv. I 5). , An High Priest, holy, harnlless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; , not like those' high priests Vdl0 have infirll1it,y,' and needing to 'offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people's' (IIeb. vii. 26, 27, 28). He 'did no sin, neither was guile found in His nlouth' (I Pet. ii. 22). lIe' was nlanifested to take away our sins, and in I-lim is no sin' ( I John iii. 5). The words of the Article, that 'lIe came to be the Lamb \vithout spot' are from the following:- , He ,vas led as a Lanlb to tbe slaughter, and us a sheep before her shearers is dUlllb, so He openeth not His mouth' (Isai. liii. 7). 'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto hinl, and saith, Behold the Lalllb of God which taketh away the sin of the world' ( John i. 29). ' Christ, w 10 through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God' (Heb. ix. 14). lledeemed ',vith the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot' (I Pet. i. 19. Compo Exoc1. xii. 5; Lev. xxii. 19, 20, 2 I). II. The second part of the Article, that 'aU other men offend in many things, even though baptized and born again,' has been already considered at some length under the ninth Article. It ,vas there sho\vn, that the taint of sin pervaded the whole 11 uman race, and that everyone naturally born of Adam was subject to it; and that even the regenerate had still the remains of such corruption; and that that concupiscence, \vhich still re- rnains in them, has the nature of sin. 1 I. It may be sufficient here to recite a fe\v of the passages of Scripture, on \vhich more especially the proof of this assertion depends. , If they sin against Thee,' says Solomon; 'for there is no nlan that sinneth not' (I Kings viii. 46). 'In Thy sight,' says David, , shall no man living be justified' (Ps. cxliii. 2). ' vVho can s y,' asks the ,vise mall, 'I have made my heart clean, I aIll pure fr0111 my sin?' (Prov. xx. 9). "Ve have proved both Je\vs and Gentiles, that they are all under sin' (Ronl. iii. 9). 'Death passed upon all nlen, for that all have sinned' (Rom. v. 12). ' The Scripture hath concluded all under sin' (Gal. iii. 22). 'In nlany things ,ve ] AlI8pw7rwll ovõfÌs åvap.åpn]TOS, ivì "yàp p.apTvpEÎTaL, ón åp.apTlall OUK l7rol7JUE. Basil. .11. Urate de Panitentia. Suicer, I. 207. SEC. Ir.J OF CHRIST ALOXE \YITHOUT SIX. 351 offend all ' (James iii. :2). c If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us' (I John i. 8). c Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof' (Rom. vi. 1:2). c I had not known sin but by the Law: for I had not known lust except the L'1W had said, Thou shalt not covet' (Rom. vii. 7). So ó the flesh lusteth against the Spirit' (Gal. V. I ï). The last two passages show that lu t or concupiscence hath the nature of sin. 2. The principal objections which may be urged against this part of the doctrine of the Ar icle, are such as the following. In some passages of Scripture people are called blameless: as (Luke i. 6) Zacharias and Elisabeth are spoken of as 'both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless.' In a like n1anner St. Paul speaks of hin1self as having 'lived in all good conscience before God to this day , (-"- cts xxiii. I); as exercising himself' to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward D1an' (Acts xxi v. 16); as having been before his conversion, 'touching the righteous- ness \vhich is in the Law, blameless' (Phil. iii. 6). Such passages seern to argue blameless perfection. But ,ve may answer that Zacharias could not have been perfect, or he would not have disbelieved the Angel, when he promised him a son, and so have been smitten \vith dumbness for his want of faith (Luke i. 20). St. Paul, when he speaks of himself as blameless touching the righteousness of the La,v, \vas a persecutor of the Church, and though he did it ignorantly in unbelief, and so obtained mercy, yet we can hardly consider it as consistent \vith perfection; and tbough he speaks of hinlself as exercising himself to have a conscience void of offence, yet \ve know that 1e did 'not count himself to have apprehended,' that he was sensible of 'infirn1Ïties' (see 2 Cor. xi. 30; xii. 10, &c.); that he felt it neces- sary 'to keep under his body, and bring it into subjection' (I Cor. ix. 2ï). Nay, we kno\v that he was liable to infirmity, for so sharp a contention arose between him and Barnabas, that they could not continue together in the work of the Gospel, but \vere obliged to separate one from another. We nlust therefore under- stand the word bla1ncless in a more popular sense, not as if those of \vhonl it is predicated were free frorn all stain of sin, but as nleaning that they lived an upright, godly Jife, ever striving to keep a conscience free from offence, and never yielding to those wilful sins, which offend society, or destroy the work of God"s AA 352 OF CHRIST ALONE 'YITHOUT Sl . [ART. XV. grace in the soul, or even give cause of "deep and bitter regret to him ,vho )-ields to them. Again, it is said of the Christian under grace, that' the law of the Spirit of life makes him free from the la,v of sin and death' (Rom. viii. 2). This is true of all good Christians, but it does not mean that they are made perfect and ,vholly free frolll sin, but that the Spirit of God sets them free from the bondaJe and sla'Cery of sin, and gives them freedom and strength to 'fulfil the righteousness of the Law.' The same reasoning nearly applies to the words of St. John, 'vVhosoever is born of God doth not commit sin' ( I John iii. 9). This is true of every regenerate man as regards his ne\v nature, the new man created in him. The new man is pure and holy, hating sin and avoiding it. Still, however, there are the remains of the old man, causing in him those infirmities which more or less are common to all. A regenerate man does not live in admitted sin. If he does, his new life has failed and is stifled. But he still 'in many things offends,' and, 'if he says he has no sin, he deceives hÍInself;' because, in this ,vorld the old nature l1)ay be kept in su bjection and bondage, but is never thoroughly extinguished, until the last enen1Y has been destroyed, and all things are put in subjection under the feet of Christ. It is true, we are bid to be holy, as Christ is holy (I Peter i. I 5); to' be perfect, as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect' (:ßIatt. v. 48). But \ve can infer from these exhortations no more than this. It is our part to set before us the highest possible standard at which to aim. Christ took our nature that He might make us partakers of IIis nature; and ,ve are never to be satisfied unless we grow daily more and more like to Him. But it does not follo\v that 've shall ever attain to such perfect conformity to His Image, until ,ve become 'like Him, by seeing Him as He is.' "\Ve con1e, lastly, to consider the case of the blessed Virgin. That she was a person of IllOSt singular holiness, most highly honoured of God, and most affectionately beloved by her Divine Son, no candid reader of Scripture can doubt. The Angel salutes her, 'Hail, thou that art highly favoured: 1 the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among women' (Luke i. 28). Her cousin Elisabeth saluted her, by the Holy Ghost, saying, 'Blessed art thou among ,vomen;' and though she ,vas Ler near kinswoman, 1 Kfxaptrwp.Ú7J. The margin has' Or, graciously accepted, 01", much graced.' SEC. 1r.J OF CHRIST ALOXE 'YITHOUT SIX. 353 yet wondered t the honour done to herself in that' the Iother of her Lord should come unto her' (Luke i. 42, 43). :\Iary her- self said of herself, that ' all generations should call her blessed' (Luke i. 48). The Lord in His youth \vas subject to her (Luke ii. 5 I). At His death, and ,vith His dying accents, lIe COln- nlended her to the care and guardianship of His most devoted and best 10veJ disciple (John xix. 26, 27). "\Ve learn of her, that she ,vas the first who, hearing the blessed teaching of her Son, 'kept all His sayings in her heart' (Luke ii. 5 I). "\Ve find her following Him, with unwearied and dauntless affection, to the foot of His Cross ( John xix. 25); and, \vhen all His most faithful followers ,vere dispersed, continuing with the Apostles' with one accord in prayer and supplication' (Acts i. 14). All this is but \vhat \ve should expect. Doubtless among women there never lived a holier than she, \vho ,vas chosen to the highest honour that ever befell created being. That honour, indeed, to be the tabernacle of Incarnate Godhead, to cherish the infant years, minister to the wants, and soothe, if such there were, the ea.rly sufferings of the Redeen1er of mankind, to be the only earthly instrument by ,vhich God ,vrought the mystery o the Incarnation, is an honour so high, that we can hardly ,yonder if ages of ignorance gave undue reverence to her who had such favour of God. l Yet it has been remarked, that on three separate occasions our Lord and her Lord used of, and to, her, language at least bordering on censure. At the marriage in Cana, the words '\Voman, what have I to do with thee?' (John ii. 4) (though not sounding so strong in the Greek as in the English language), bave been esteemed in all ages as words of rebuke. 2 Before this, when He was but twelve years old (Luke ii. 49), as His 1110ther and Joseph sought for Him, He reproves them for not knowing thp high mission on which He came: 'Ho\Y is it that ye sought Ie ? 1 ':\Ian is a creature of extremes. . . . Becau e Papists have maùe too much of things, Protestants have made too little of them. . . . Because one party has exalted the Virgin Iary to a divinity, the other can scarcely think of that 'most highly favoured among 'women with common re- spect.' -Remains of the Rev. Richard Cecü, p. 3 6 4. Xinth Edition. Lond. 1830. 2 Tl ÈP.OL KaL '0 )'JlWcrTLKÒf,; òÈ wv pÈv KfKT'Y}TaL 7rapaJ.,LoJlrw, f7rLTr}ðfLóT'Y}Ta ðt ELf,; d pl>\",^-fL á7roßalJlELV, Kat åi"òL6T'Y}Ta WJI "'},:ý/tf;uaL alTý}crETaL. '-Strorn. Lib. VII. j, p. 857. SEC. I.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTlS I. 365 person, who fell away from grace, had never been a Christian. In his tract De Præscriptione even, ,vhich ,vas probably written before his l\lontanism, he speaks of no one as a Christian, but such as endured to the end. 1 But in his tract De Pudicitia, which was written when he had become a l\Iontanist, in commenting on those words of St. John, 'He who is born of God sinneth not,' he argues, that venial sins, such as causeless anger, rash swearing, &c., all Christians are liable to; but that deadly sin, such as Inurder, idolatry, blasphemy, inlpiety, no good Christian, no child of God, ,vill comn1Ït. 2 Bishop Kaye even thinks that the language of Tertullian in his lateI' writings is directly opposed to the doctrine of our XVlth Article. But he observes that, as there ,vas no con- troversy on the subject of perseverance in his days, ,ve must not construe his expressions too strictly. 3 The time when this ques- tion really came to be discussed was after the rise of Pelagianism, and when St. Augustine had stated his predestinarian opinions. Perseverance was a natural part of his doctrine of predestination; for, whereas he taught, that some men were predestinated to eternal salvation, whilst others 'vere permitted to fall by their o\vn sins into condemnation, it followed of necessity that he should believe some to be predestinated to final perseverance, and others not. In his 'VOl' k De 001 rcptione et Gratia, he calls those elect, \vho were predestinated to eternal life; 4 and observes that those who did not persevere were not properly to be called elect, for they were not separated froln the mass of perdition by the forekno\v- ledge and predestination of God; and though, \vhen they believed and \vere baptized and lived according to God, they Inight be called elect, yet it was by those who knew not the future, not by God, who saw that they ,vould not persevere. 5 The clergy of Iarseilles and other parts of Gaul being offended at the predestinarianism expressed in this and other treatises of Augustine, Prosper and Hilary wrote to him a statement of their objections. These letters of Hilary and Prosper called forth a reply from St. Augustine, in two books; tbe former on the Predes- tination of the Saints, the other on the Gift of Perseverance. In the latter, he asserts perseverance to be the gift of God, not given equal1y to aU, but only to the predestinated. "\Vhetber a person has received this g ift must in this life ever be uncertain. for , , 1 'Nemo autem Christianus, nisi qui ad jinem usque perseurmxrit.' -De Præ- script. 1/ æ1'et ic. c. 3. 2 De Pudicitia, C. 19. 3 Ep. Kaye's TerlllllÙw, p. 34 0 . 4 De Corrept. et G1"Clt. 14. :> ibid. 16. 366 OF S IX AFTER BAPTIS I. [ A.RT. X'VI. ho\vever long he may have persevered in holiness, yet if he does not persevere to tbe end, he cannot have received the grace of perseverance.! He says that, of two infants equally born in sin, by God's will one is taken, 011e left; that of two gro\vn persons, one follows God's call, another refuses to follow it; and all this is froln the inscrutable judgments of God. And so, of two pious persons, \vhy to one is granted final perseverance, to another it is not granted, is to be resolved into the still more inscrutable judg- ments of God. 2 It appears plainly, tbat St. i\.ugustine held two distinct pre- destinations: one predestination to regeneration and a state of grace, the other predestination to perseverance and to final reward. vVe find him continually speaking of persons predestinated to be brought into the Church, and so by God's grace brought to baptism, and therein regenerate, but not necessarily, on that account, per- severing to the end. Nay, he speaks of persons continuing in a state of grace for many years, but yet finally falling a\vay. 3 Such ,vere predestinated to regeneration, and to receive grace and sanc- tification, but, for some unknown, though doubtless just cause, they were not predestinated to final perseverance. God is pleased to nlix those \yho will not persevere with those \vho \vill, for good and ,vise reasons, on purpose that he \vho thinketh he standeth should take heed lest he fa11. 4 In this life it was utterly impossible for anyone to know whether he would persevere or not:'} He might Ii ve ten Tears and persevere for five, and yet for the last five fall avvay.6 vVe may see examples of God's hidden counsels in the case of some infants ,vho die unregenerate, others ,vho die rege- nerate; the former lost, the latter saved. And of those \vho are regenerate and grovY up, some persevering to the end, others per- mitted to live on till they lapsed and fell away, and so are lost, who, if they had died just before they lapsed, would have been saved; and again others, who had lapsed, preserved in life till ] De DOllo Persc 'erantiæ, Opp. Tom. x. p_ 822. See especially SS I, 6, 7, 10, IS, 19. 2 'Ex duolms autem piis, cnr huic donetur perseverantia usque ad finem, illi non donetur, inscrutabiliora suut judicia Dei. . . . K onne postrPIDo ntriqne vocati fuerant, et vocantem ecuti, utrique ex impiis justific:1ti, et per Iavacrum regene- rationis utrique renovati? Sp.d si hæc audiret HIe, qui 8ciebat procul dubio quod dice bat, respol1dere posset et dicere : Vera sunt hæc, secundum hæc omnia ex nobis erant; verumtamensecundumaliamquall- . dam ùiscretiollem non erant ex nobis. nam si fuissent ex nobis. mansisscllt, uti que nobiscum.'-Ibid. S 21. 3 See especially De Oorrept. et Grat. 20,22; De Dono Pe1'severantiæ, 1,21,32, 33, &c. 4 De Don. Per8C " 19. 5 'Utrum quisqne hoc munus acce- perit, quam diu bane vitam ducit, incer- turn est. Si enim prins quam moriatllr eadat, non perseveras e ntiqne dicitur, et verissime dicitur.' -Ibid. I. 6 Ibid. SEC. 1.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTIS I. 367 they repented again, who, if they had been taken away before repentance, would have been damned. l It is of considerable importance to observe tbe nature of St. A ugustine's doctrine of perseverance, as it materially differs from the doctrine most generally held by later predestinarians. St. Augustine did not hold that persons ,vho had once received the gift of God's Spirit could never lose it, or, at least, could never be finally lost. On the contrary, he plainly taught that persons might receive the gift of regeneration, and n1Ïght persevere in holiness for a time, and yet, if they had not the gift of perseverance, might fall away at the last. In short, he held that predestination to grace did not necessarily imply predestination to glory. A person might receive the grace of God and act upon it, and yet not per- severe to the end; and hence it was that he held that, even if a person had all the signs and tokens of a child of God, it was quite impossible in this life to say whether he was predestinated to persevere to the end. 2 The question of final perseverance, and of the falling from grace, thenceforth becanle a natural part of discussions concerning predestination. At the time of the Reformation all these subjects ,vere hotly discussed. The Council of Trent found nothing to condenln in the ,vritings of Luther, or of the Lutheran divines, on the subject of predestination, or of final perseverance; 3 but from the writings of the Zuinglians several articles were dra.wn out, which were COll- sidered deserving of condenlnation. Among these there ,vere- (5) That the justified cannot fall from grace. (6) That those who are called, and are not in the number of the predestinated, do never receive grace. (8) That the justified is bound to believe for certain that in case he fell from grace he shall receive it again. 4 The divines of Trent, though not entirely at one concerning some questions of predestination, agreed to censure these concerning final perseverance, with admirable concord. They said that it had always been an opinion in the Church, that nlany receive grace and keep it for a tilDe, who afterwards lose it, and are damned at the last. They al1eged the examples of Saul, Solomon, and Judas, of whom our Lord says, 'Of those whom Thou hast given )le have I lost none save the son of perdition.' To these they added Nicolas, one of the deacons, and for a conclusion of all, the fall of Luther:') 1 De Don. Persev. 3 2 . 2. See note C) last page, and Dc Dono Pl.rsf'l.'e'rCmtiæ, passim. 3 Sarpi, p. 197. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., p. 200. BE 368 OF SI AFTER BAPTIS1I. [ART. XVI. . The language of Luther, on all the subjects connected with predestination, varies a good deal. Earlier in his life, he was a bigh predestinarian, but later he seems to have materially changed bis vie .vs. In his comn1entary on the 17th chapter of St. John, he speaks of all disputes on predestination as having sprung from their author the devil. 1 In his comlnentary on the Galatians (ch. v. 4), he speaks plainly of falling froln grace, and says that , he who falls away from grace loses expiation, remission of sins, righteousness, liberty, life, &c., which Christ by His death and resurrection deserved for us; and in their roon1 acquires wrath, and God's judgment, sin, death, slavery to the devil, and eternal damnation.' 2 rrhe Xlth Article of the Confession of Augsburg, which is clearly the source of our o,vn XVlth Article, conden1ns the Ana- baptists, who say that persons once justified cannot again lose the Holy Spirit. 3 From \vhich we may conclude, first, that such was the teaching of the Anabaptists; and secondly, that the Lutberans viewed it altogether as an Anabaptist error. The Calvinist divines, on the contrary, have generally believed that grace once given was indefectible; and this is, in fact, their doctrine of perseverance. Calvin himself held that our Lord and St. Paul taught us to confide that \ve should always be safe if we ,vere once lnade Christ's; and that those who fell a\vay n1ay have had the outward signs, but had not the inward truth of election. 4 The English reformers, as we have already seen, adopted in this Article the language, not of the Zuinglians and Calvinists, but of the Confession of Augsburg and the Lutherans. This is a.pparent from the ,vording of the Article itself, which evidently follows the ,vording of the Confession of Augsburg; and also from tbe Homi- lies and other docun1ents, both before and after the drawing up of the Articles. 'The Necessary Doctrine' has been appropriately cited, which says, , It is no doubt but although we be once justified, et \ve may fall therefrolll. . . . And although ,ve be illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and be made partakers o the Holy Ghost, yet we may fall and displease God.' 5 The ,vhole of the Homily 'Of Falling from God' hölds language of the same cha- racter. It should be read throughout, being a practical discourse, 1 Opp. Tom. v. p. 197. 2 Opp. Tom. v. p. 405. 3 '1Jamnant et Anabapti tas, qui ne- gant semel justificatos iterum posse amit- tere Spiritum Sanctum.'-Sylloge, p. 173. 4 'Quid hillC nos di cere voluit ChI i:5- tus, nisi ut confidamus perpetuo nos fore salvos, quia illins semel facti sumus ' &c. -Instit. Lib. III. c. xxiv. 6, 7. I) Forrn,u1aries of Faith in tlLe Reign of IIcnry the Eighth, p. 36]. SEC. I.] OF SIX AFTEn. BAPTIS I. 369 fronl which extracts would fail to give a right impression. It is impossible to doubt that the doctrine contained in it is, that we may once receive the grace of God, and yet finally fall away from Him. These were documents dra\vn up at the period of the Re- formation, shortly before the putting forth of the Articles. The second book of Homilies, written early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and of nearly the same date with the final revision of the Articles, breathes the same spirit throughout. The language of the HOluily called' The First Part of the Infol'mation of certain parts of Scripture' may be referred to as a specimen. After reciting examples from Scripture of the sins of good men, it continues, , 'Ve ought then to learn by them this profitable lesson, that if so godly lllen as they \vere, which otherwise felt inwardly of God's lIoly Spirit influencing their hearts with the fear and love of God, could not by their own strength keep themselves fronl committing horrible sin, but did so grievously fall, that \vithout God's mercy they had perished everlastingly; how much more ought we then, miserable wretches, \vhich have no feeling of God within ns at a11, continually to fear, not only that we nlay fall as they did, but also be overcome and drowned in sin, as they ,vere not.' The Hon1Ïly on the Resurrection has the following: 'Y e must consider that ye be therefore cleansed and renewed that "iie should henceforth serve God in holiness and righteousness all the days of your life, that ye may reign váth Him in everlasting life (Luke i.). If ye refuse so great grace whereto ye be called, what other thing do ye than heap to you damnation more and more, and so provoke God to cast His displeasure npon yon, and to revenge this Illockage of His holy sacraments in so great abusing of thenl? Apply yourselves, good friends, to live in Christ, that Christ nlay still live in you,' &c. Similar is the tone breathed by the Liturgy itself. In the Baptismal Service we are taught to pray that the baptized child 'nlay ever remain in the number of God's faithful and elect children.' In the Catechisnl the child. after speaking of himself as in a state of salvation, adds, 'I pray unto God to give me His grace that I may continue in the same unto nlY life's enJ.' And in the Burial Service we pray that God will 'suffer us not at our last honr for any pains of death to fall frolll' IIinl. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth the sympathy, which had prnng up with the Calvinistic reformers of the continent, made the teaching of our English divines approximate more nearly to the teaching of the Calvinists. K ear the end of that reign a dispute B B 2 370 OF SIN AFTER BAPTIS r. [ART. XVI. arose at Cambridge, originating in the teaching of Barret, a fellow of Cains College, who preached ad cle1 urn against Calvin's doctrines about predestination and falling fronl grace. Barret was com- plained of to Arch bishop 'Vhitgift, who at first took his part; but at last, at the earnest request of the heads of Colleges, sent for him to Lambeth, ,vhere he was directed not to teach like doctrines again. The dispute so originating was continued between Dr. vVhitaker, the Regius Professor, and Dr. Baro, the largaret Professor, of Divinity. Whitaker, who took the high Calvinistic side, ,vas sent by his party to Lambeth, where he proposed to the Archbishop to send do\vn to Cambridge a series of Articles, nine in number, stamped with the authority of the archbishops and bishops, in order to check the progress of what he called Pelagianisnl. Archbishop "\Vhitgift was thus induced to call a meeting of bishops and other clergy. The theses of Whitaker \vere su brnitted to thenl, and \vith some fe\v alterations, which however were of considerable inlportance, they were passed by the meeting and sent down to Carn bridge. The Queen censured Whitgift for the whole proceeding; and he pro- mised to ,vrite to Cambridge, that the Articles Inight be suppressed. These were the famous Lambeth A1 ticles. The fifth and sixth con- cerned falling fronl grace and certainty of salvation. The fifth as proposed by ,Vhitaker ran thus, 'True, living, and justifying faith, and the influence of the Spirit of God, is not extinguished, nor fa.ils, nor goes off: in those who have once been partakers of it, either totally or finally.' The divines at Lambeth erased the words 'in those \vho have once been partakers of it,' and substituted for them 'in the elect; , thus ulaking the doctrine nlore nearly corre- spond with Augustine's, rather than, as it did ill 'Vhitaker's draught of it, with Calvin's. The sixth Article, in \Vhitaker's draught, said that, 'A man who truly believes, that is, who bas justifying faith, is sure, from the certainty of faith, concerning the remission of his sins and his eternal salvation through Christ.' For' certainty of faith' the Lanlbeth divines substituted' full assurance of faith,' using that word as signifying) not a full 311d absolute certain y, such as is the certainty of nlatters of science or of the principles of the faith, but rather a lesser degree of certainty, such as is obtained in matters of judicial evidence and legal trials. 1 Soon after the accession of James 1., A.D. 1604, the conference 1 The Vth and VIth Articles as drawn by 'Vhitaker were : 'V. Vera, viva, et justificans fides et Spiritus Dei Sanctificans non extingui- tur, non excidit, non evanescit in iis qui 8unel ejus participes fuerunt, aut totaliter aut finaliter. 'VI. Homo vere fidelis, id est, fide SEC. 1.J O}' SIX AFTER BAPTIS:\f. 371 ,yas held at Hampton Court. Dr. ReJ nolds, the speaker for the Puritans, moved Rlnong other things, that the Articles be explained and enlarged. For exanlple, whereas in Art. XVI. the words are these: 'After \ve have received the Holy Ghost, \ve may depart from grace,' he wished that there should be added, 'yet neither totally nor finally: ' and also that' the nine assertions orthodoxal concluded at Lam betb Inight be inserted into that book of Articles.' On this point he was answered by the Bishop of London; no alteration of the kind was conceded, the Articles remaining as they \vere before, and the Lau1beth Articles never having received any sanction of the Church or the Crown. l SECTIO IT.-SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I. T HE first thing ,, e have to show from Holy Scripture is, that 'every deadly sin con1mitted after baptism is not 11 npar- donable,' and that ' the place of forgiveness is not to be denied to such as truly repent.' To prove this proposition, it ,,'ill be desirable (I) to show that sins after baptism are not generally unpardonable; (2) to consider those texts of Scripture, which are thought to prove the great heinousness and unpardonable nature of Eome sins especially if committed after baptism. (I) First, then, sins after baptism are not generally incapable of being pardoned. Baptism is the first step in the Christian life, by which we are adn1Ìtted into the covenant, and to a share of the pardoning love of God in Christ. Under the Jewish dispensation there \yas no such thing as baptism ordained by God; but circumcision admitted into God's covenant with Abraham, and to a participation in the bless- ings of the congregation or Church of the Jews. Now it is a truth universally admitted, that the blessings 'we receiye under the Gospel are greater than those wbich the Jews received under the Law. Especially, under the Gospel and in the Church of Christ, there is justificante præditu , certusestcc1.titudine fidei, de remissione peccatorum suorum et salute sempiterna sua per Christum.' In the Vth the Lambeth Divjnes for in iis qui semel clus participes fuerll1lt, ,substituted in electis. In the VIth for certitudi'fle they sub- stituted ple1"ophoria.-See Strype's \Vhit- gift, L. IV. c. 17. 1 Cardwell, Hist. of Conft.rellces, p. 178. 372 OF SI AFTER BAPTIS1I. [ART. X"VI. a fuller fountain of mercy and grace opened to all. 'There is a fountain open for sin and for uncleanness,' such as the Jews had only in figure. 'The Law was given by }'loses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ' (J oh. i. 17). Yet under the La\v it is quite certain that there ,vas a continual sacrifice offered for the sins both of priests and people, and a continual prolnise of pardon to the returning and penitent sinner. The prophet Ezekiel (ch. xxxiii. 12-20) by God's conlmandment clear1yexpounds to the Israelites that, of those ,vithin the covenant, if the righteous man turn from his righteousness, he shall surely die; but if the wicked' turn fronl his sin, and do that which is lawJul and right,' 'none of his sins that he bath comnlitted shall be mentioned U11tO him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.' So the pro- phet David, after deliberate 111urder and adultery, ,vas yet at once restored on his repentalice. If then under t.he Law tbose who sinned 'vere adn1Ìtted to pardon, but under the Gospel, that is to say, after baptisnl, those who sin are not adnlitted to pardon, then is the Gospel a state of less, instead of greater, grace than the Law; "then those who have been nw,de partakers of Christ have heen adlnitted to a sterner la,'V and a less lllerciful covenant than those who ,vere baptized into 1\1:oses, and admitted to that carnal c0111mandrnent which made nothing perfect. It is true, indeed, that the greater God's 111ercies are, the heavier will 1;>e the punishment of those who slight then1. ' If they ,vho despised }.Ioses' la,v died without mercy, of ho\v nluch sorer punishment shall he be thought \yortby, \V ho hath trodden under foot the Son of God? ' (Heb. x. 28, 29). Yet that the slight- ing of God's mercies should be of so great guilt results from the fact that those 111ercies are so great; and, if the grant of repent- ance be withheld froln the Christian, \vhich \vas conceded to the J e\v, then 've 11lay say that God's mercies under the Law were greater than are His mercies under the Gospel. Thus then we Inay naturally infer that pardon of sin would be given to Christians, and that sin conlmitted after baptism ,yould not in general exclude the sinner fronl all hope of repentance. Such reasoning is fully confirnled by the language of the N e,v Tes- tament. The Lord's Praver was ordained for the use of those who oJ might call Alnlighty God their Father. 'Ve therefore may clearly see that it \vas to be used only by children of God. N o'v in bap- tiSlTI ,ve are made children of God. In the Lord's Prayer, then, God's baptized children are taught to pray, that their sins should be forgiven them. And our blessed Lord COlllforts us with the SEC. 11.] OF SI AFTER BAPTIS I. 373 assurance that, 'if we forgive men their trespasses, our heavenly Father will also forgive our trespasses ' ( latt. vi. 14). So in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke xv.), it is a son that leaves his father, and "rho on his repentance is welcomed home and pardoned. The parable plainly sets before us that if we, as sons of God, leave our Father's home and revel in all iniquity, still on true and ear- nest repentance we shall be received, pardoned, cOlllforted. To the chief ministers of His Church our Lord gave the power of binding and loosing; binding by censure upon sin, but loosing again by absolution and reconciliation (l\Iatt. xviii. 18); and to confirm this power to thenl more strongly He declared: "Vhose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained' (John xx. 23). If the recon- ciliation of offenders to the Church be so sanctioned in Heaven, can there be a doubt that there is also pardon in Heaven for such as, having so offended, have repented and been reconciled? 'Ve have instances in the New Testament of the Apostles giving hope of pardon, and restoring communion to those who had sinned most heavily after baptism. Thus Simon 1\Iagus, just after he ,vas baptized, sho\l'ed himself to be ' in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity;' yet St. Peter urged him to repent of his wicked- ness, and to pray to God, if perhaps the thought of his heart might be forgiven him 1 (Acts vii. 22,23). Even of the man who after baptism had committed incest, and whom St. Paul (I Cor. v. 1-5) bids the Corinthians to excommunicate, he yet gives hope that 'his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus' (ver. 5). And, ,vhen the incestuous man had given signs of true sorrow for his sin, but a very short time after his excommunication, the Apostle orders him to be restored to communion, declares that he n1inisterially pardoned his offences in the name and as the minister of Christ (2 Cor. ii. 10); recommends the Corinthians to comfort him, that he should not bo s\vallowed up \vith overll1uch sorrow (ver. 7); and assures then1, ,vith reference to the same subject, that 'godly sorrow ,vorketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of' (2 Cor. vii. 10). Nay; he expressly says, that the object of excommunicating the guilty l11an was that 'his spirit might be saved' (Cor. v. 5). Again, St. Paul exhorts the Galatian Church: 'Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault (Èv TLVl 7iapa7rTwp.aTL), you, which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering 1 Kal ÒfÝjO?]n ÐéOÛ, í lJ.pa åtþfOÝj(UTaí UOt 1] hrlvOLa 7 S Kapõí.as uoû. 374 OF SIN AFTElt BAPTISM. [",- RT. XVI. thyself, lest thou also be tempted.' The ,vords made use of are perfectly general, and we may infer from them, as a general rule, that a man entrapped or overtaken by any kind of transgression or backsliding is, on his repentance, to be restored to communion. In the latter part of the second Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 20, 2 I), the Apostle speaks of his apprehension that he shall be grieved at the state of the Corinthian Church, for he feared that many of the Corinthian Christians had committed all those sins which most grievously defiled the temple of God (ùxaeápcTla, 7rÓpVEla, àUE^7Ela), even every kind of uncleanness; but then the way in which be adds Ka p. p.ETaVOl}uávTWV, 'and have not repented,' seems clearly to indicate that the poignancy of his grief was derived from tLeir impenitence; and that for those who repented there was still room for pardon and hope. St. Peter tells us, that God' is long-suffering to usward ' (mean- ing, as we may suppose, to Christians), , not 'willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance' (2 Pet. iii. 9). St. John says that, as all men are sinners, so, 'if \ve confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.' And when he writes to Christians, calling them his' little children,' and exhorting them that they sin not, he yet adds, 'If any man sin, we have an advo- cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins.' Here ,ve have an evident address to those who ,vere members of Christ's Church by baptism, an earnest exhorbition to them not to sin, yet an encouragement to those who fall into sin not to despair, as there is yet an advocate, )Tet pro- pitiation, through Jesus Christ (1 John i. 9; ii. I, 2). St. James ( James v. 14, 15) enjoins that, if any rnember of the Church be sick, he should send for the clergy, the elders of the Church, to pray over him, and among other blessings promises that 'if he have cornmitted sins they shall be forgiven him.' Lastly, in the Apocalypse, referring to men who had been seduced from their faith to aU the abon1inations of the worst kind of heresy, our blessed Lord speaks of 'giving time to repent;' and tbreat ns heavy punishment, 'unless they repent of their deeds' (Rev. ii. 20-22). The general promises to repenting sinners do not, of course, belong to our present inquiry. Such promises may have been made to such as l1ad not been baptized, and may be perfornlec1 only in baptism. But those no\v adduced a1l evidently concern Christians, who hac1 been brought to Christ by baptisnl, and who had afterwards fallen into sin. And they seem clearly to prove SEC. II.J OF SlY AFTER BAPTIS I. 375 that not even the deadliest sin committed by a baptized person makes it utterly impossible that, on hearty repentance and true faith, he should be forgiven. (2) There are indeed some passages of Scripture, and some very serious considerations, which have led to the belief that deadly sin after baptism has never forgiveness; and these ,ve must take into account. The fact that St. Paul speaks of the whole Church and every individual Christian as temples of the Holy Ghost (I Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 22), joined with nlany similar con- siderations, shows that at our baptism we are set apart and con- secrated to be temples of God. And then St. Paul declares that , if any man defile the tenlple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple are ye ' (I Cor. iii. 17). In like nlanner we know that in Baptism we are made menlbers of Christ (see Gal. iii. 27; Epbes. iv. 15, 16, &c.). And St. Paul, reminding the Corinthians of tbis, says: "Vhat, know ye not that your bodies are tbe members of Christ? Shall I then take the mem bel's of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.' (I Cor. vi. 15). Such sayings prove with exceeding force the great wickedness of sin, and especially of sins of un- cleanness, when committed by a baptized Christian; who thereby 'sinneth against his own body' (I Cor. vi. 18), and against the Holy Ghost, whose temple His body has been made. So our blessed Saviour, speaking of Christians as branches of the \Tinp, ,vhose root and stem is Christ, says that, , If a man abide not in :JIe, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered' (.John xv. 6). These passages, however, though they sho\v the great guilt of sinning against grace, do not prove such sins to be unpardon- able, though probably they suggested the opinion that sin after baptism \vas the sin against the Holy Ghost ,vhich hath never forgiveness. There are strong and very fparful passages in the first Epistle of St. John, which have still morp led to some of the opinions disclaimed by the Article we are now considering. In I John iii. 6, 8, 9, "e read that' 'Vhosoever abideth in Him sinneth not. . . . He that committeth sin is of the devil. . . . 'Vhosoe\rer is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.' This passage led J ovinian to teach that a baptized Christian could never sin; and has been one argulnent by which it bas been inferred that, if by any means this high e tate of purity should be lost, it would be lost 376 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM:. [ART. XVI. irrevocably. J eronle, in his ans,ver to J ovinian, ,veIl explains the general tenour of St. John's reasoning. He remarks that St. John exhorts those, whom he addresses as little children, to keep themsel ves from idols (I John v. 2 I); showing that they \vere liable to be tempted ]ike others, and to fall; that he ,vrites to then1 not to sin; ani! assures them still that if they sin they have an Advocate in the Lord Jesus Christ (I John ii. I, 2); that their best way of knowing that they know Christ is to keep His com- n1andments (ver. 4); that he, ,vho says he abides in lIim, ought to \valk as lie walked (ver. 6). ' "Therefore," he continues, " St. J obn says, I ",Tite unto you, little children," since" everyone \v ho is born of God sinnetb not," that ye sin not, and that ye nlay know that ye abide in the generation of God, so long as ye do not sin; yea, those \vho continue in God's generation, cannot sin. For ,vhat communion hath Cbrist \vith Belial? If \ve have received Christ as a guest into our hearts, we put to flight the devil. But if we sin again, the devil enters through the door of sin, and then Christ departs.' 1 This seenlS a correct account of St. John's reasoning, and shows that \vhat he lneans is, that the regenerate man, so long as he continues in the regenerate state, OV(lrcomes sin and casts it out; but if he fall from the regenerate state and sins, then he becon1es again the servant of the devil. But it neither proves that the regenerate man cannot sin, nor that, if he does, his fall is irrecoverable. But St. John ( I John v. 16, 17) speaks of the distinction be- t\veen ' sin unto death,' and 'sin not unto death,' and encourages us to pray for the latter, but not for the forlner. Bp. JerenlY Taylor has some good remarks on this verse. 'Every Christian,' he says, 'is in sonle degree in the state of grace, so long as he is invited to repentance, and so long as he is capable of the prayers of the Church. This \ve learn fron1 those ,yords of St. John, 'All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death; , that is, some sorts of sin are so incident to the condition of men and their state of in1 perfection, that the Ulan who hath conunitted them s still within the methods of pardon, and hath not forfeited his title to the pron1Ïses and covenant of repentance; but 'there is a sin unto death; , that is, some men proceed beyond the Ineasures and economy of the Gospe], and the usual methods and probabilities of repentance, by obstinacy, and preserving a sin, by a wilful, spiteful resisting, or despising the offers of grace and the means of pardon; 1 A dv. Jvvinian. Lib. II. circ. init. Tom. IV. Part. II. p. 193. SEC. 1r.J OF SI AFTER RAPTIS11. 377 for such a man St. John does not encourage us to pray; if he be such a person as St. John described, our prayers 'will do hilll no good; but because no mall can tell the last minute or period of pardon, nor just when a man has gone beyond the limit; and be- cause the limit itself can be enlarged, and God's Jnercies stay for some longer than for others, therefore St. John left us under the indefinite restraint and caution, which was decretory enough to represent that sad state of things in which the refractory and inl- penitent have inlmerged themselves, and yet so indefinite and cau- tious, that \ve may not be too forward in applying it to particulars, · nor in prescribing measures to the Divine nlercy, nor in passing final sentences upon our brother before \ve have heard our Judge IIimself speak. ' Sinning a sin not unto death' is an expression fully signifying that there are some sins, which, though they be conlmitted and displease God, and nlust be repented of, and need many and mighty prayers for their pardon, yet the man is in the state of grace and pardon, that is, he is within the covenant of lllercy; he may be admitted, if he win return to his duty: so that being in a state of grace is having a title to God's loving-kindness, a not being rejected of God, but a being beloved of HinI to certain purposes of mercy, and that hath these measures and degrees.' Again, '" Every act of sin takes a\vay something fronl the con- trary grace, but if the root abides in the ground, the plant is still alive, and 11lay bring forth fruit again. But he only is dead ,yho hath thrown off God for ever, or entirely \vith l]is very heart." So St. An] brose. To be "dead in trespasses and sins," which is the phrase of St. Paul (Eph. ii. I), is the same with that expression of St. John, of " sinning a sin unto death," that is, habitual, refractory, pertinacious, and incorrigible sinners, in WhOlll there is scarcely any hope or sign of life. These are they upon whom, as St. Paul's expression is (I Thess. ii. 16), "the wrath of God is conle upon them to the uttermost, E; TÒ TÉXor;, unto death." So was their sin, it 'vas a sin unto death; so is their punishment.' 1 But by far the nlost terrible passages in Scripture, on the danger of backsliding and the difficulty or impossibility of renewal, are to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. ",Ve learn indeed from Tertullian (De Pudicitia), that the difficulty of the 6th chapter of that Epistle was the main reason why the Roman Church ,vas so long in admitting it into the Canon. In tlle loth chapter we read that, 'if we sin wilfully after we 1 Of Repentance, ch. iv. 2. 378 OF SIN AFTER RAPTIS ðI. [AUT. XVI. have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin; but a certain fearful looking for of judg- ment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised 1\1oses' la,v perished without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought \vorthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace?' (Heb. x. 26-29). rrhe peculiar strength of this passage is in the ,vords, 'If we sin wilfully after ,ve have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.' The ,vord 'sin' in tlle first · clause is here supposed by many to rnean 'apostatize.' So in Hos. xiii. 2, we read N ? E) i" i1{1 1 ' Now they add moreover to sin:' where the sin spoken of is a revolting from God, and aposta- tizing to Baal. And, as regards the 'remaining no more sacrifice for sin,' the Apostle had been showing, throughout the early verses of the chapter, that the priests under the Law kept constantly offering sacrifices year by year and day by day (vv. 1- I I). But Christ offered but one sacrifice for sin, and by that one sacrifice hath perfected all that are sanctified (vv. 12-14). So then if we reject the sacrifice of Christ, and after a knowledge of its saving efficacy, apostatize willingly 1 from the faith, there are not no'\v fresh sacrifices, 'offered year by year continually,' and by rejecting the one sacrifice of Christ, we cut ourselves off from the benefit of His death; and since ,ve have chosen sin instead of God, tbere is no new sacrifice to bring us to God. Another of the hard sentences ,vbich has led to a belief in the irremissibility of post-baptismal sin is Heb. xii. 17. The Apostle, ,yarning against the danger of falling from grace, bids us take heed lest there be 'any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for oue morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, ,vhen he would have inherited a blessing he ,vas re- jected; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully ,vith tears.' There can be no doubt that Esau is here propounded to us as a type of those who, having been made sons of God by baptism, and so having a birthright and promised in- heritance, by thoughtlessness and sensuality, 'for one morsel of meat,' thro"w thernselves out of God's favour, and leaving God's family, return to the condition of mere sons of Adam. St. Paul relninding us that, when Esau had sold his birthright, he found no ] fKOUG"[W<;, i1 ' ":1, with a high hand, I and Rosenmül1er thereon; Kuinoel on presumptuously. S t: Numb. xv. 29,30; }ieb. x. 26. SEC. II. ] OF SIN AFTER BAPTIS I. 379 place for repentance, even when he sought it "yith tears, puts us on our guard against the like folly, by fear of the like fate. Yet it does not follow, of course, that every person who lives unworthily of his baptismal priviJeges shall be denied access to repentance. We can never, when we yield to sin, know that God \vill give us repentance; and we may die in our sin. And even if we repent, our repentance, like Esau's, may be too late; after the door is shut, and when it \vill not do to knock. Weare told elsewhere of those who came and cried, , Lord, Lord, open unto us,' and ,vho received no answer but, , I know you not' (l\fatt. xxv. I I, 12). Such a late repentance is that of those ,vho would repent in the grave, perhaps of some who seek only on the bed of death. But if we follow out the history of Esau, we may gain at least this comfort from it, that, even late as he had put off his seeking repentance, so late that he could never be fully restored, yet, though not to the same position as before, he .was still restored to favour and to blessing (Gen. xxvii. 38, 39). So that "\ve n1ay hope from this history, as set forth to us for a type, that, though such as cast away their privileges as Christians find it hard to be reinstated in the posi- tion from which they fell, and may, perhaps, never in this world attain to like blessedness and assurance as if they had never fallen, still the door of repentance is not shut against them. Their place in their father's house may be lower; but still it is not hopeless that there may, and shall, be a place for them. The strongest passage, and that on which the Novatians most rested their doctrines, remains yet to be considered. It is Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6: 'It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heaveüly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put hÜn to an open shame.' The Syriac Version, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others of the ancients, who are followed by Ernesti, l\Iichaelis, and n1any learned men of our own times, understand by the .word ' enlightened' (ä7ra WTL(TetllTaç) here, anà in Heb. x. 32, 'baptized.' Clen1ent of Rome, J ustin rartyr, and others of the very earliest Christians, used the word in this sense.! But whether we admit this to be the right interpretation or not, we must allo'w the passage to teach that a person, after baptism and Christian blessing and enlightenment, may 1 See Suicer, s. v. q>WTltW, q>WTl(j/l-ór. . Also Bingham, E. A. 1. iv. I, XI. i. 4. 380 OF SI AFTER BAPTIS I. [ART. XVI. so fall away that it may be impossible to rene\v hiln to repentance. The \vords made use of seem to say, that persons once baptized, endued ,vith God's Holy Spirit, made partakers of the Christian Church,! if they despise all these blessings, rejecting, and, as it ,vere, afresh crucifying the Son of God, cannot be again restored to repentance. The difficulty of the passage lies almost wholly in two words, 7ïapa7ré(TÓVTa , 'having fallen a\yay,' and ù.vaKaLVt ELV, , to renew.' lost comnlentators consider the word 'fall away,' ,vhich occurs here only in the Ne,v r,restament, to signify total apostasy from the faith. 2 If indeed the other two participles (ù.va(jTavpoûvTa and 7rapaðfl'YJlaTI ovTa ) be to 1e coupled "with it, as in apposition to, and explanation of it, then ,ve may ,veIl con- clude tbat it can mean no less. It is the case of those' ,vho sin \viIfully after they have recei\- ed the kno\vledge of the truth,' of him from ,vhom one devil had been cast out, but to \yhom it had returned with seven \vorse devils. Rejecting their faith and their baptism, they fall away from Christ, reproach and crucify Him afresh, as much reject Him for their Saviour as they who actual1y nailed IIim to the Cross. Bishop Taylor describes theln as persons who, 'without cause or excuse, \vithout error or infirmity, choos- ing1y, \villingly, knowingly, called Christ an inlpostor, and would have crucified Him again if He were alive; that is, they consented to His death by believing that He suffered j ustIy. This is the case here described, and cannot be dra\vn to anything else but its parallel; that is a malicious renouncing charity, or holy life, as these Inen did the faith, to both "\v hich they have made their solenlll Vo\VS in baptism; but this can no \vay be drawn to the condemna- tioll and final excision of such persons who fall into any great sin, of \vhich they are ,villing to repent.' 3 And for the other ,vord of difficulty, ù.vaKaLVI flv, , to renew,' some think \ve must understand to Tcùaptiz;e. The Church has no po\ver to rebaptize those \vho fall away; and so, as first they ,vere washec1 in the \vaters of baptism fr0l11 original sin, to "\vash thelTI again from their guilt of apostasy.4 Others understand to CUl17't'it 1 ðVJláp.ÆLS p,ÉÀÀOJlTOS al Jlos, the very phrase used in the LXX. (cf. Isai. ix. 6) of the Chri:5tian Church. See Hammond, in loco Rosenmüller and Kuinoel both understand these words of the Kingdom of Christ, the Reign of 1\Iessiah. Hence 'the powers of the world to come' wonlù be the ulessed effect of Christ's kingdom and gospel. 2 7rapa7rí7rTfLJI is the translation of the LXX. for û ; Ezek. xxii. 4, and S Ezek. xiv. 13. Schleusner compares 2 Chron. xxix. 19, where the LXX. trans- late ;S 7 fJl à7rOUTauíÇ!. aÙTOÛ. 3 0;1, jlepentance, ch. ix. sect. 4. 4 Dr. Hammond, in loco observes that SEC. II.J OF SI AFTER BAPTIS 1. 381 by absolution to the fellou:ship of the ChllTch, and so restore them to repentance and penance, when they have once thoroughly apos- tatizec1. 1 Others understand that, whereas they have rejected the Gospel and all its means of grace, their case has becon1e hopeless, because no other covenant can be provided for them; C There re- Inaineth no more sacrifice for sins.' No new method of salvation ,viII be devised for them; and as they have utterly given up the one already provided, rejected Christ, and despised His Spirit, so it is impossible that any other should renew then1. ' Other founda- tion can no man lay, save that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ' (I Cor. iii. I I); 'for there is no means of salvation but this one; and this one they hate, and will not have; they will not return to the old, and there is none left by which they can be renC'wed, and therefore their condition is desperate.' 2 On the \vhole, there can be no doubt of the awful severity of the language of this passage, and of the warning it gives us against falling from grace; but, when we compare it with other passages somewhat like it, and contrast with it those which assure us of God's readiness to receive the penitent sinner and to give repent- ance even to those who sin after grace given, we can hardly fail to conclude that it concerns particularly extreme cases, and not those of ordinary occnrrence; and that, though it proves the heinousness of sinning against light and grace, and shows that we may so fall after grace as never to recover ourselves, yet it does not prove that there is no pardon for such baptized Christians as sin grievously, and then seek earnestly for repentance. The fact that our Lord left to His Church the power of the keys, allowing its chief pastors to excommunicate for sin and restore on repentance, and that the .Apostles and first bishops eyer exercised that power, shows that eyen great sins (for none other led to excollllnunication) do not exclude fronl pardon. Nay, , Baptism is f:Zç f1.f:TåVOLaV, the admission of us to the covenant or faith and repentance: or, as Iark, the anchorite, called it, 7ïpcJ1>a(){ç f:()Tl T Ç f1.f:Tavo!aç, the introduction of repentance, or that state of life that is full of labour and care, and amendment of our faults; as f)'KatviSHv is to dedicate, consecrate, su ò.vaKatviSHv is to reconsecrate. Per- sons utterly apostate could not be recon- f:ecrate. There was no power to repeat their baptism, nor, if utterly apostate, could the Church readmit them by penance to Church communiou. 1 Iany understand ùvaKatvlSflV as ap- plied to the mini::;ters of the Church. It is 'impossible for the ministers of Christ to renew them again: ' that is, there is no other sacrament by which we can restore offenders tu the same po iti()n iu which they were before their fall, and in which they were once placed by the sacrament of baptism. 2 Bishop Jeremy Taylor, as above. 382 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [ART. X.VI. for that is the best life that any man can live; and therefore, re- pentance hath its progress after baptism, as it hath its beginning before; for first, 'repentance is unto baptism,' and then' baptism unto repentance.' . . . . Besides, our admission to the Holy Sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper is a perpetual entertainment of our hopes, because then and there is really exhibited to us the Body that ,vas broken and the Blood that was shed for the remission of sins. Still it is applied, and that application could not be necessary to be done anew if there were not new necessities; and still ,ve are invited to do actions of repentance, 'to examine ourselves, and so to eat.' AU which, as things are ordered, would be infinitely useless to n1ankind, if it did not n1ean pardon to Christians falling into foul sins even after baptism.' 1 We may therefore conclude that, severe as some passages of Scripture are against those who sin ,vilfully against light and grace, and strict as the discipline of the early Church was against all such offenders, there is yet nothing to prove that heinous sin committed after baptism cannot be pardoned on repentance. Tbe strongest and severest texts in Scripture seem to apply, not to persons ,vho have sinned and seek repentance, but to apostates fronl the faith, who are stout in their apostasy, and hardened in SIn. II. Our next consideration is the 'sin against the Holy Ghost.' The staten1ents of Scripture already considered have, as we have seen, been supposed by SOllie to show that the sin against the Holy Ghost n1ust be falling grievously after baptism. For, as it has been supposed that these statements made deadly sin after baptism the unpardonable sin, and our Lord makes blas- phemy against the Holy Ghost to be unpardonable, and both our Lord and St. John ( I John v. 16) seem to speak as if there were but one unpardonable sin, therefore deadly sin after baptisln and the blasphen1Y against the Holy Ghost n1ust be identical. The foregoing argull1ents seen1 sufficiently to have shown that this bypothesis is untrue. If ,ve examine the circumstances under ,vhich our Lord uttered His solen1ll ,varnings concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we may probably the better understand the nature of that sin. He had been casting out a devil, thereby giving signal proof ) Jeremy Taylor, On Repentance, ch. ix. sect. 2. SEC. II.J OF SIN AFTER BAPTIS I. 383 of His Godhead. But the Pharisees, instead of believing and acknowledging His heavenly lnission, ascribed His power to Satan and Beelzebub (fiIatt. xii. 24). Those, who thus resisted such evidence, were plainly obstinate and hardened unbelievers, such as, we may well believe, were given over to a reprobate mind, and such as no evidence of the truth could 1110Ve to faith and penitence. Accordingly, many believe that by thus rejecting the faith, and ascribing the works of our Lord's Divinity to the power of evil spirits, they had committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. That they were Ve?>Y near committing that sin there can be little doubt. They had stepped upon the confines, they had uttered daring and desperate blasphemy. They had reviled the holy Son of God. They had called His works of love and goodness the ,vorks of the devil, thereby confounding light with darkness. But still our Lord consents to reason with them. He still puts forth parables by which to convince them that they ,vere in error (l\Iatt. xii. 23-30). And He would scarce do this, if there ,vere no hope that they might repent, no possibility that they might be forgiven. And then He warns them. Warning and reasoning are for those who may yet take warning and conviction, not for those to whom they would be useless. And of ,vhat nature is His warning? They had just blas- phemed Him, disbelieved His lnission, disregarded His miracles. Yet He tells them in gracious goodness, that all manner of sin and blasphemy which men commit shall be forgiven them, that even blasphemy against Himself, the Son of Ian, shall be forgiven; but then He adds, that, if they ,vent further still, and committed the same sin moreover against the Spirit of God, it should never be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (vV'. 3 I, 3 2 ). Now Christ was then present with them as the Son of l\Ian. The glory of His Godhead was veiled under the likeness of sinful flesh. rrhose were' the days of the Son of Ian ; , and' the Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.' There is no doubt that it must bave been deadly wickedness, which led men to doubt the truth of His doctrine, ,vhen taught with such power from His sacred lips, and proved so mightily by the works which He wrought. But the full power of the Gospel had not been put forth; especially the Spirit had not been poured on the Church-a blessing so great, that it 111ade it expedient for His disciples that even Jesus should go a,vay from them in order that He might give it to them (John xvi. 7). But when the Spirit was cc 384 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISl\l. [ART. XVI. poured forth, then all the means of grace 'Were used; Jesus work- ing without, and the Spirit pleading within. And in those who received the word and were baptized the Spirit took up His dwell- ing, and moved and ruled in their hearts. This then was a state of greater grace, and a more convincing state of evidence to the ,vorld and to the Church, than even the bodily presence of the Saviour as the Son of l\lan. Accordingly, resistance to the means of grace, after the gift of the Spirit, \vas worse than resistance during the bodily presence of Christ. Resisting the latter, re- fusing to be converted by it, rejecting its evidence, and obstinate impenitence under its influence, ,vas blasphemy against the Son of Ian. Still even this could be forgiven; for further and yet greater nleans of grace were to be tried, even on those \vho had rejected Christ. ' The Gospel \vas to be preached unto them, ,vith the Holy Ghost sent do\vn from heaven' (I Pet. i. 12). Butthis mission of the Comforter was the last and highest nleans ever to be tried, the last and greatest dispensation of the grace of God. 'Those, therefore, \vho after this still remained obstinate, still rejected Christ in His kingdom as they had rejected Hilll in His humility, still refused to be converted, ascribed the gifts of His Apostles and the graces of His Church, not to the Spirit of God, but to the Spirit of evil, such men blasphemed not only the Son of Ian-the Word of God when veiled in hunlan flesh-but they rejected and blasphemed the Spirit of God, and so had never forgiveness. This seems the true explanation of the sin against the Holy Ghost-viz., obstinate, resolute, and wilful impenitence, after all the means of grace and \vith all the strivings of the Spirit, under the Christian dispensation as distinguished from the Jewish, and amid all the blessings and privileges of the Church of Christ. And this view of the subject does not materially differ from the statement of St. Athanasius-viz., that blasphemy against Christ, when His manhood only ,vas visibie, was blasphemy against the Son of l\Ian; but that, \vhen His Godhead was manifested, it became blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: nor from that of St. Augustine, that the sin against the Spirit of God is a final a"nd obdurate continuance in ,vickedness, despite of the caUs of God to repentance, joined ,vith a desperation of th e mercy of God. 1 III. The last subject to which we come is the question of Final Perseverance, or the Indefectibility of Grace. 1 See tbe statement of their opinions in Sect I. SEC. I1.J OF SI AFTER RAPTIS)!. 385 The Article saJ s, , After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may ari e again and amend our lives.' The argun1ents, \vhich have been already gone into, concerning the grant of repent- ance and pardon to those who sin after ba ptiSIl1 and the grace of God, sufficiently prove the latter clause of the abovf? statement. Indeed the forn1er clause may be considered as proved also; for if there is a large provision in the Gospel and the Church for for- giveness of sins and reconciliation of those who, having received the Spirit, have fallen away; then n1ust it be possible that, , after we ha'\e received the Holy Ghost, we lllay yet depart from grace and fall into sin.' Jovinian indeed held that every truly baptized person could sin no more. But such an error has been very un- COlllmon in the Church, so uncommon, that it is scarcely needful to prove that a person may have received grace and yet be tempted and fall into sin; as David so grievously fell in the matter of Uriah, or as St. Peter, 'when he denied his Lord. But the question, \vhether a person, who has once received grace, can ever fall finally and irrecoverably, has been much agitated since the days of Zuingle and Calvin; and, though possibly not expressly determined by the \vording of this Article, it yet pro- perly comes to be considered here. The doctrine of the Zuinglians and High Calvinists has been that if a man has once been regenerate and endued with the Holy Ghost, be may fall into sin for a time, but will surely be restored again, and can never finally be lost. "\Ve have seen, on the con- trary, that St. Augustine and the more ancient predestinarians held that grace might have been given, but yet, if a person was not p'pedestinated to peTseverancc, he might fall away. "\Ve have seen that the Lutherans 'held that grace given might yet be lost utterly. vVe have seen that the reformers of the Church of England, 'whether follo\ving St. Augustine in his views of predes- tination or not, appear clearly to have agreed with him, and with Luther and the Lutherans, in holding that grace might be lost, not only for the time, but finally. I. The passages of Scripture most in 'favour of the doctrine, that those \vho have once been regenerate can never finally fall from grace, are such as follow. :ðlatt. xxiv. 24, which n1ust be set aside, if rightly translated. l 1 The English version translates el I Calvinistic theory is in the words it 'lce'l"e òvvaTòv, 'if it 'loe'l"e possible.' The whole which are not in the Greek. Render it strength of the passage as favouring the 'if possible,' and the argument is gone. cc2 386 OF SIN AFTETI BAPTIS I. [ART. XVI. Luke xxii. 32, \vhich shows that our Lord prays for His servants. John vi. 39; John x. 27, 28; but these last must be comparec1 \vith John xvii. 12, which shows that, though the true sheep of Christ never perish, yet some Inay, like Judas, be given Him for a time, and yet finally be sons of perdition. Rom. viii. 3 8 , 39 ; xi. 29, show that God is faithful and will never repent of His mercy to us, and that if we do not wilfully leave Him no created power sha.ll be able to pluck us out of His hand. They lyro?;c no more than this. Stronger by far are such passages as I Cor. i. 8, 9; Phil. i. 6 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3. Yet they are addressed to whole Churches, all the melnbers of \vhich are certainly not preserved blameless to the end. The confidence expressed concerning the Philippians (Phil. i. 6) cannot have meant that it was impossible for any of them to be lost; for St. Paul afterwards exhorts them to ' work out their salvation with fear and tren1 bling' (ii. I 2), and to ' stand fast in the Lord' (iv. I). SO that we must necessarily understand the Apostle's confident hope to result from the consideration of the known goodness and grace of God, and also of the Philippians' own past progress in holiness. 'He conjectured,' as Theophylact says, 'from \vhat ,vas past, what they .would be for the future.' 1 The passages which speak of Ohristians as scaled, and having the' earnest of the Spirit' (see 2 Cor. i. 2 I, 22; Ephes. i. 13: iv. 30), are thought to teach the indefectibility of grace; because what is sealed is kept and preserved. But sealing probably only signifies the ratifying of. a covenant, which is done in baptism. And though the giving of the Spirit is indeed the ea7?nest of a future inheritance, it does not foHow that no unfaithfulness in tbe Christian 111ay deprive him of the blessing, of which God has given hinl the earnest and pledge, because a covenant always implies t\yO parties, and if either breaks it the other is free. So again J anles i. 17 tells us ot the unchangeableness of G-od, and 2 Tim. ii. 19 shows that He 'knoweth them that are His." But neither proves that we may not change, nor that all who a!e- now God's people will continue so to the end, though He kno,veth who \vill and who will not. The expression, , full assurance of hope' (Heb. vi. I I), has been thought to prove that we may be always certain of continuance if ,ve ha\Te once known the grace of God. But the Apostle does not ground the 'assurance of hope' on such a doctrine. His 1 å7rò TWV 7rapé"-.8óvTWV KaL 7rfpì. TWV }.IÆ"-."-.ÓVTWV O"ToxaróftfvoS'.-Theophyl. in loc.. quoted by Whitby, whom see. SEC. II.] o F SI AFTER BAPTIS)I. 387 words are: ' 'V e desire that everyone of you do sho,v the same diligence to the full assurance of hope to the end; that ye be not slothful, but followers of thenl 'who through faith and patience inherit the promises.' This shows that our assured hope will spring from a close walk with God, and that slothfulness, or a lack of diligence, is likely to impair our hope and disturb our ab- snrance. The more diligent ,ve are, the nlore hope ,ve shall have; our hope not being grounded on the indefectibility of grace, but on the evidences of our faith given by a consistent growth in grace. Again, I Pet. i. 4, 5, speaks of an inheritance 'reserved in heaven for those 'v ho are l.:cpt by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.' The word' kept' is in the Greek cþpovpovp.Évovç, i.e., , guarded as in a garrison.' The figure represents believers as attacked by evil spirits and wick d nlen, bn t defended by the power of God, through the influence of their faith. It does not sho,v that all believers are kept from falling away; but that they are guarded by God through the instrumentality of their faith. ' If ' then 'they continue in the faith' (Col. i. 23), 'if they hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end' (Heb. iii. 14); then will' their faith be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one' (Eph. vi. I 6), and \vill 'overcome the world ' ( I John v. 4). But, as it is expressly said that it is 'through faith' that they are 'kept' or' guarded,' we cannot infer that their faith itself is so guarded that it can by no possibility fail. l But the strongest passage on this side of the question is I John iii. 9: "Yhosoever is born of God doth not conlmit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.' From this Jovinian inferred that a regenerate man could never sin again; but the Zuinglian and Calvinist infer that the regenerate man, having the seed of life in him, may indeed fall into sin, but is sure to recover himself again, and to be saved at the last. If the text proves anything about indefectibility of grace it plainly proves J ovinian's rather than Calvin's position- viz., that the regenerate man never f'llls into sin at all, not merely that he does not fall finally. The truth is the Apostle is simply contrasting the state of the regenerate with that of the unregenerate, and tells us that sin is the mark of the latter, holiness of the former. 'He that doeth right- eousness is righteous . . . he that comnlitteth sin is of the devil' (vv. 7, 8). Here is the antithesis. It is like the statement, C A 1 See 'Vhitby and l\Iacknight on I Pet. i. 4, 5. 388 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [ART. XVI. good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit' (Matt. vii. 18). rrhis does not mean that a good tree can never cease to be good, and so cease to bear good fruit. l So it is .with that of St. Paul, 'The carnal n1Ïnd cannot be subject to the law of God' (Rom. viii. 7). But it is not meant that a man of carnal mind may not be converted, and then love holiness and God's la\v. So Ignatius writes, 'Spiritual men cannot do the things of the flesh; , 2 that is, obviously, so long as they continue spiritual. Just so St. John. He points out the difference between the righteous and the wicked-viz., that the former do righteousness, the latter commit sin. Then he says, , Everyone that is born of God 3 cannot sin, because of the seed of God which is in him.' He is righteous, and therefore doeth righteousness; he is a good tree, and therefore cannot bring forth bad fruit; he is spiritual, and therefore cannp:Wf}TO'i 07]fJ.O'i l(jp.f:V, o.z,oÈ ßápßapov q>û"}..,ov. oùoÈ Ó7rOLa KapG", 17 CÞPVì'wv i!OP'f}, å"}..,"}..,à Kal 7}p.â'i l E"}..,É aTo Ó 8EÒ'i, Kaì lp.1>av7] fì'EVÝJ01} Toî p.1] l7rEPWTW(jLV aÙTÒP. 'Iooù 8E6'i dfJ-L, 1>?]erì np {OPEl Ot OÙK l7rEKaÀÉeravTo TÒ lJvofJ-á fJ-OV . . . . Kaì 7}p.â oÈ å7rav- Ta OL' lKdv?]'i T7]'i 1>WP7] fKá"}..,EerE, Kaì l ÝJ"^.eOfJ-EV 1jO?] å7rò T7]'i 7ro"}..,LTda'i EV V l WfJ-EP, K. T. À. -Dial. p. 347. 2 Kal OLà TOÛTO 7rÀ?]PWOÉPTO TOÛ åpLOP.OÛ ou aÙTÒ'i 7rap' aÙT( 7rPOWPU;E, 7rállTE oi f'Yì'pa1>{vTH El'i w1]P åvaerTÝJ- erOPTaL . . . . Ypa TÒ erÚfJ-J1ÆTpOV 1>û"}..,ov T7] 7rpOOplerEW'i å7rò 8wû åpOpW7r6T?]TO å7ro- TEÀEerOfv T?]V ápfJ-oplav T?]PÝJerl1 TOÛ ITa- Tpò'i.-Adv. Hær. II. 72. 3 'Deus his quidem qui non credunt, sed nullificant eum, infert cæcitatem. . . . Si igitur et nunc, quotquot scit non credi- turos Deus: cum sit omnium præcognitor. tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, t avertit faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quas ipsi sibi elegerunt; quid mirum, si et tunc nunquam crediturum Pharaonem, cum his qui cum eo erant, tradidit eos suæ infidelitati,' &c.-Lib. IV. 48. 4 'Nec enim lumen deficit propter eos qui semetipsos excæcaverunt, sed illo per- severante quale et est excæcati per suam culpam in caligine constituuntur. Neque lumen cum magna necessitate subjiciet sibi quemqnam: neque Deus coget eum qui nolit continere ejus artem. Qui igitur abstiterunt a paternolumineet transgressi sunt legf'm libertatis, per suam abstiterunt culpam, liberi arbitrii et suæ potestatis facti. Deus autemomnia præsciens, utris- que aptas præpara\'it habitationes,' &c.- Lib. IV. 76; Lib. v. 27, 28. SEC. 1.J OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 399 But it is probable that the meaning which he attached to the Scriptul'al term election '\'Vas, that God chose and elected certain persons to baptism and to be n1embers of His Church. In speak- ing of Esan and Jacob, as types of the Jewish and the Christian Church, he explains St. Paul's language in the ninth of Romans as meaning that God, \vho kno\veth all things, was foretelling the rejection of the Je\vs, and the election of the Gentile Church. 1 Explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he says that God first planted the vineyard of the human race by the creation of Adam and the election of the fathers; then let it out to husbandmen, the Jews; surrounded it with a hedge, built a tower, and elected Jerusalem. But ,vhen they did not believe, He sent His Son, whom they sle\v. Then the tower of election being exalted and beautified, the vineyard, no longer ,vallec1 round, but laid open to the \vorld, is let to oth-er husbandmen, who will bring forth the fruits. For the Church is everywhere illustrious; everywhere the winepress is dug rounel, because those ,vho receive the Spirit are everywhere. And soon after he says that the saIne Word of God \vho formerly elected the patriarchs has now elected us. 2 Thus, it appears, that Irenæus looked on the Je\vs as formerly, and on the Christian Church as now, the elect people of God; and so he calls' the Church the synagogue or congregation of God, ,vhich He hath collected by Himself.' 3 Tertullian says little or nothing to guide us to his view of the doctrine of election, except that, in arguing against certain heretics, he maintains that it is unlawful so to ascribe aU things 1 'In ea enim epistola quæ est ad Romanos, ait Apostolus : Sed et Rebecca ex uno concubitn habens Isaac patris nostri; a }"àbo responsum accepit, ut secundum electionem proposiIU71 Dei permaneat, non ex operibus, sed ex vocantc, dictum est ei: Duo populi in .utero tltO, et d'llæ gentes in 'ventre tuo, et populus populu'nl, Sll- pC7'abit, et major 8erviet '1n.inori. Ex quibus manifestum est non solum pro- phetationes patriarcharum. sed et partum Rebeccæ prophetiam fuisse duorum popu- lorum: et unum quidem esse majorem, alterum \7ero minorem; etalterumquidem sub servitio, alterum autem liberum; unius autem et ejusdem patris. Unus et idem Deus noster et illorum; qui est ab. sconsorum cognitor, qui scit omnia ante- quam fiant; et propter hoc dixit ; Jacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui.' -Lib. IV. 3 8 . 2 'Plantavit enim Deus vinea1l1 hu- mani generis, primo quidem per plasma- tionem Adæ, et electionem patrum: tradidit autem earn colonis per eam legis datiollem quæ est per )Ioysen: sepem autem circumdedit, id est, circumtermi- navit eorum culturam; et turrim ædifi- cavit, Hierusalem elegit. . . . . K on cre- dentibus autem illis, &c. . . . . tradidit eam Dominus Deus nom jam circumval- latam, sed expansam in universum mun- dum aliis colonis, reddentibus fructus temporibus suis, turre electionis exaltata ubique et speciosa. Ubiqueenilll præclara est ecclesia, et ubique circumfossum tor- cular: ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt Spiritum. . . . Sed quoniam et patriarchas qui elegit et nos, idem est Verbum Dei,' &c.-Lib. IV. 70. 3 'Deus stetit in sYllagoga, &c. De Patre et Filio et de his qui adoption em perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia Hæc enim est synagoga Dei, quam Deus. hoc est, Filius ipse, per semetipsum col- legit. '-Lib. III. 6. DD 400 OF PREDESTINATIOX AND ELECTIO . [ART. XVII. to the ,vill of God, as to take a\vay our own responsibility and freedom of action. 1 Clement of Alexandria appears to have used the same language as his predecessors, concerning the Church as the election, and all Christians as the elect of God. He especially defines the Church as the general assembly of the elect. 2 So he quotes Hermas, as saying that the Church is held together by that faith by ,vhich God's elect are saved. 3 The Church, according to Clell1ent, is the bod r of Christ, a holy and spiritual company; but they who belong to it, but live not uprightly, are, as it were, but the flesh of the bO,dy.4 He holds the Church to be one, into which are collected all those who are righteous according to the purpose (KaTà 7rpÓÐEG"lV); and continues, that the Church is one, which collects together by the ,vill of God those already ordained, whom God hath predestinated. 5 But then, when we COlne to the ground or cause of God's election, \ve find that Clement seems to speak of it as being God's forekno,vledge. Thus, in the last passage referred to, he says, the Church embraces ' all ,vh0111 God hath predestinated, having fore- known that they would be righteous before the foundation of the "vorld.' 6 So he speaks of each person as partaker of the benefit, according to his o,vn váll; for the choice and exercise of the soul constitutes the difference of the election. 7 Accordingly, Bishop l{aye thinks, 'it is evident that Clement must have held the doctrine of predestination in the Arn1inian sense; , 8 and Ir. Faber says, that' this prescientific solution is for the first time enounced by the speculative Clement of Alexandria.' 9 Whether Justin and Irenæus had in any degree enounced the same before, may be a fair question. The causation of sin they clearly refused to attribute to God, declaring that, where He 1 'x on est bouæ et solidæ fidei, gic omnia ad voluntatem Dei referre: et ita adulari unmnquemque, dicendo nihil fieri sine jussione Ejus: ut non intelligarnus aliquid esse in nobis ipsis. Cæterum ex- cusabitur omne delictum, si continueri- mns nihil fieri a nobis sine Dei voluntate.' -De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 2. See Bishop Ka,ye's view of Tertullian's opinion on this subject in his account of Tertul- lian, p. 34 I. 2 TÒ ã8pourp.a TWlI fK"AfKTWJI fKK"Ar]CJlaJl à"Aw.-Stronzat. VII. p. 846, Potter. 3 'R TO; VUJI CTUvfxouCTa T7}JI fKKÀfCTlav, wS' Ø7jCTìJl Ò 7rOLP.7}JI, àpfT7} i] 7rlCTTLS' iCTTì, OL' 7}S' CTW!OVTaL oi. K"AfKTOì TOÛ 8fOÛ.- Stromat. Lib. II. 458, Potter. 4 See Stromat, Lib. VII. p. 885. Õ p.lav flJlaL T1W à"A7j81] l.KK"A7jCTlaJl, fÌS' 'lJv oi KaTà 7rpÓ8fCTLJI olKaLOL f')'KaTa"A'')'Oll- TaL . . . P.ÓJl7jJl fiJlaL ØáP.fJl T7}JI àpxaiaJl Kaì Ka80"ALK1}JI fKK"A 7jCTlaJl . . . OL' illòs TOl) Kupiov CTuJlá')'ovlTaJl TOÙS' ?j07j KaTaTfTa')'}J.f- 1I0US', oUS' 7rpOWpLCTfJl Ó 8fòS'.-Strom. YII. p. 899. 6 OÛS' 7rpOWpLCTfJl Ó 8fÒS', OLKalouS' iCTO- p.ÉvOUS' 7rpÒ KaTaßo"A1]S' KÓlTP.OU f'}'JlWKWS'.- Ibid. 7 p.fTa"Aap.ßáJlfl. oÈ T1]S' fV7rodaS' fKalT- TOS' 7l/J"WJI 7T"pÒS Ó ßoú"AfTaì o (7rfÌ T7}JI OLa- øopàll T1]S' iK"AO)'1]S' à la )'fJlOJ.tfJl"'f} Ý;UX1]S' a'l.pflTlS' Tf Kat lTUJlå.lTK7jCTLS' 7T"f7rol7jKfJl.- Strom". v. sub fine, p. 734. 8 Ep. Ka,ye, Clement .Alex. p. 434. >> Faber, PrimitÜ'e Doctrine of Elec- tion, p. 269. I I I I I SEC. 1.] OF PREDESTINATIOX AND ELECTION. 401 is said to have hardened, it was because He foresaw the SInner was irreclailuable. And though Clement of Alexandria speaks more clearly than either of them concerning God's foreknowledge as the ground of His predestination, yet he does not differ from them in the vie\v that the Church of God is COlll posed of the elect people of God. Some divines of the ROlnan COlnmunion 1 have endeavoured to discover the doctrines of St. Augustine in the writings of Clement; but it is only because he ascribes the beginning, the continuance, and the perfection of religion in the soul, to the grace of God, that they have thence inferred that, as it is all of grace, so it must all be of absolute predestination. Yet everyone but slightly acquainted with the predestinarian controversy nlust know that the chief disputants on every side of this troubleson1e argument have all alike agreed in ascribing the whole work of religion in the soul to God's grace and the operations of His Spirit; the question having only been, Is that grace irresistible or not? Is the freedom of the will utterly extinguished by it or not? The passage especially referred to by Bossuet, in proof of the Austinism (so to speak) of Clement, is the prayer with which he concludes his Pædagogue, and which is simply,-that God \vould grant us that, following His commandments, 'we may become fully like Him, and that He \vould grant that all passing their lives in peace, and being translated into His kingdom or polity, having sailed over the \vaves of sin, may be .borne through still waters by His Holy Spirit, and may praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, day and night unto the perfect day. And to this prayer he adds, that 'Since the Pædagogue (i.e., the Word of God) has brought us into His Church, and joined us to Hi III self, it \vill be ,veIl for us, being there, to offer up thanksgiving to the Lord in return for His gracious guidance and instruction.' 2 This passage, however, rather corresponds with what we have seen to be the general doctrine of Clement, as probably of his predecessors-viz., that God's election brought men to baptism and to His Church, and that His grace, given to them there, enabled them, if not determined to quench the Spirit, to go on shining more and more unto the perfect day. From this time forth, although the belief in God's election of 1 Bossuet, D fcnse de let t'raclition et dcs Saints Pè1'es, Tom. II. Liv. XII. chap. 26; Lumper, Historia Theologico-C1'itica, Tom. IV. p. 285. 2 Pædagog. Lib. III. sub fine, p. 3 I I. The concluding words are, brd õi fÌs T1]JI fKK"X.7Juía." 7}p.âs KaTauT1}uas Ó IIaLõa'}'w- '}'Ò aÙTÒ iavTtß 7rapaKaTÉ8 TO Ttß õLõau- Ka"X.LKc8 Kaì 7rallf'rrLUKÓ7r Aó-yc.p, Ka"X.w a." XOL 7}p.âs fllTaû8a '}'fPop.l."ov , p.Lu8ò." fúxapLuT[as õLKa[as, KaTá"X.Ì\.7J"^-OIl àU7f[ov 7raLõa'}'w-yla<; aLIIOIl àlla7rÉ/.ttJ;at Kvplc.p. DD2 402 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [AnT. XVII. individuals into His Church, and a frequent identification of the Church with the elect, is observable in all the patristic writers of eminence; yet when the question concerning the final salvation of individuals was brought into contact with the question of the Divine decrees, that solution of the difficulty, since called Arminian, ,vas generally adopted. Origen, the pupil of Clement of Alexandria, himself the greatest speculator of early times, and the great n1aintainer of the freedon1 of the \vill, adopted it in its fullest and most definite form. He expressly says that God, who foresees all things, no more causes man's sins, nor forces his obedience, than one, who looks at a person walking in a slippery place, is the cause that he should stumble.! Such was the progress of opinion among the early Christians, and so general was the spread of the foreknowledge theory in the third and fourth centuries, that our great. Bishop Andrewes considered almost all the fathers to have believed in a foreseen faith, 'which,' he adds, 'even Beza confesses;' 2 and Hooker, himself an illustrious disciple of St. Augustine, says, tha.t 'all the ancient fathers of the Church of Christ have evermore with uniform consent agreed that reprobation presupposeth fore- seen sin as a most just cause, whereupon it groundeth itself.' 3 So much was this the case, that even St. Augustine himself, ,vhen first entering upon the question of predestination, taught that it was contingent on God's foreknowledge of the faith or unbelief of individuals. 4 But his further progress in the Pelagian controversy, \vhere he had to contend against those who grievously abused the doctrine of man's freewill, led him to reconsider the questions concerning the grace of God and His predestination and purpose. Indeed he asserts, and that truly, that before the Pela- gian controversy, he had written concerning fr ewill, almost as if 1 "Û(J'7rfP d TLS ópwv TLva ôtà p.Èv åp.a8lav 7rp07rfTfj ôLà ôÈ T1]V 7rpo7rÉTnav åvaXoì'l(J'TWS f7rLßalvovTa òôoû òXt(J'8Ýjpas, Kal KaTaXáßoL 7rf7rfîa-8at ÒXt(J'(JÝj(J'avTa, ouxl aïnos TOÛ òXl(J'8ov iKfÍVCfJ ì'lpuaL. Oí5TW IJor]TÉOll TÒV 8fÒV 7rpOfWpaKóTa 07rOLoS (J'TaL fKa(J'Tos, Kal Tàs alTlas TOÛ OLOÛTO:' aUTòv ,f(J'f(J{Ja!. , Ka8opq.v aì ÖTL a/-lapT7J(JfTQL raôf ì'LVW(J'KH, KaL KaT- op8w(J'ft Táôe Kal fÌ xpy] XÉì'HV OU T1}V 7rPÓì'VW(J'LV alTlav TWV ì'LVOP.Évwv où ì'àp ÙþÚ7rTfTat TOÛ 7rPOfì'VW(J'/-lÉvov á/-lapT7J(J'o- J.tÉvov Ó 8fÒS, óTav áp.ap'rávTJ" àXXà 7rapaÕO óTfpOV p.Èv, åX7J8Ès ôÈ ÈPOÛP.fV, TÒ Ùr6f.J.fVOV aïTtOV TOÛ rOLúvòE fIvaL T1}V 7rfpl aUTOÛ r.p6ì'vw(J'lv' ou ",àp, l7rEl lì'vw(J'rQL, "}'tPfTaL, åXX' f7rd "}'lvf(J'8aL fP.fX XE V.,. ''Yvw(J'raL-Origen. Plâlocal. c. xxiii. Andrewes, J'lldgment of the Lambeth A'1.ticles. 3 Answer to a Letter of certain English Protestants. 4 'Respondemus, præscientia Dei fac- tum es e, qua novit etiam de nondum natis, qualis quisque futurus sit. . . JS" on ergo elegit Deus opera cujusquam ill præscientia, quæ ipse daturus, sed fidem elegit in præscientia; ut quem sibi credi- turum esse præscivit ipsum elegerit cui Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona operando ttiam vitam æternam consequeretur.'- Proposit. Ex E(J1'St. ad Romanos Expositio. Tom. III. pars 2, 9 16. SEC. I.] OF PREDESTIXATION AXD ELECTIO . 403 he had been disputing against Pelagians. 1 But his staten1ents concerning God's forekno\vledge, as antecedent to his predestina- tion, he absolutely retracts. 2 Thenceforth his belief appears to had been that Adam fell freely,3 that, all mankind being born ill sin, God's inscrutable wisdom and mercy, for good reasons, but reasons unkno\vn to us, determined to rescue some from sin and damnation. 4 Accordingly He prepared His Church, and predes- tinated sorne to be brought into the Church by baptism, who thereby became partakers of regenerating grace. These, and these only, could be saved. 5 Yet there was a further decree, even con- cerning the regenerate-viz., that some of them should die before con1mitting actual sin, and therefore be saved; but that, of those who grew up to maturity, S0111e should be led on by the grace of God to final perseverance, and therefore to glory: 'whereas others, not being gifted, according to God's eternal purpose, with the grace of perseverance, would not persevere at all; or if they persevered for a titne, 'would in the end fall a\vay and be lost. 6 It would have been just that all should be dalnned; it is therefore of free mercy that some should be saved. 7 God therefore graciously frees some, but leaves others by just judgment to perdition. 8 'Of two infants, born both in sin, why one is taken and the other left; of two grown persons, ,vhy one is called so as to follow the calling, the other, either not called, or not called so as to follow the calling; these are the inscrutable decrees of God. And of two godly n1en, why to one is given the grace of perseverance, but to another it is not given, this is still more in the inscrutable ,viII of God. Of this, however, an the fa.ithful ought to be certain, that one was predestinated and the other not, &C.,9 The baptized and regenerate 1 Rctrctctationllrn, Lib. I. cap. ix. Tom. I. p. 15. 2 'Item disputanR quid elegerit Deus in non dum nato. . . ad hoc perduxi ratio- cinationem, ut dicerem, l.Von ergo elegit De'llB opent cujusq'lw:1n in p1'æscientia, quæ ipse dlttltrll. est,. sed fidem elegit in pree- scientia, ut quem, sibi creditla-um esse pree- scivit, ipSlt/ll. elcgerít cui Spiriturn Sanctum claret, 'ltt bona operando etim/ 'it(w a:to'- næ{fl. conscqueretur: nondum diligentins qUæ! iveram, nec adhuc iuveneram qualis sit electio gratiæ.' -Ret1'act. Lib. I. cap. xxiii. Tom. I. p. 95. 3 DeCorrcpt.etG1'at. 28, Tum.x.p.7 6 3. 4 De Dono Persc'l-'erantiæ, S 3 1 , p. 75 8 ; De Cm'rept. ct Gratia, 16, Tom. x. p. 37 8 . 5 Dc Dono Pcrsn'erantiee, 23, Tom. x. p. 83 2 . 6 Ibid, I, Tom. x. pp. 821, 822 ; 2, p. 82 3; S 21, p. 83 1 ; 3 2 , 33, p. 83 8 . 7 De Natura et Gratia, cap. v. Tom. x. p. 129. 8 De Dono Pcrscrerantiæ, 35, Tom. x. p. 839. 9 De Dono Plrsc'l'erantiæ, S 21, Tom. x. p. 831 : 'De duobus autem parvulis originali peccato pariter obstrictis, cnr iste assumatnr, me relinquatur; et ex- duobus ætate jam grandilms, cur i te ita vocetur, utvocalltelu sequatur; illeautem aut nun vocetur, aut non ita vocetur; in- scrutabilia sunt judicia Dei. Ex duubus autem piis, cur huic donetur perseverantia usque in finem, illi non donetur; inscru- tabiliora sunt judicia Dei. Illud tamen fidelibus debet esse certissimum, hunc e8se ex prædestinatis, illum nun esse.' 404 OF PREIJESTI:\..:\TION AND ELECTION. [AUT. XVII. Inay be called of the elect, ,vhen they believe and are baptized, and live according to God; but they are not properly and fully elect, unless it is also ordained that they shall persevere and live holily to the end. 1 rrhe statements of St. Augustine gave considerable uneasiness to n1a.ny ,vho agreed with him in his general views of doctrine. The menlbers of the monastery of Adrumetum were especiall) trou bled by these discussions. 2 In consequence, St. Augustine ,vrote his treatises De Gratia et Libcro A?'bitrrio and De Cor? eptione et Gratia. In a short time, the clergy of Iarseilles doubting the soundness of St. Augustine's view, Prosper and Hilary 3 wrote letters to hinl stating the scruples of the Gallican clergy, thanking him in general for his defence of the truth, but saying that hitherto the Catholic faith had been defended \vithout recourse to such a theory of predestination. 4 The Gallican clergy state that their o,vn belief had hitherto been that God's predestination ,vas founded on prevision of faith. 5 Of these l\fassilians there appear to have been two parties, one infected \vith SenÚ-Pelagian errors, the other sound and catholic. û Both, however, agreed in being startled and displeased with the doctrines of St. Augustine, and in esteen1Ïng thenl new and un- heard of. A1TIong those ,vho \vere thus dissatisfied, Prosper mentions Hilary of ArIes,' a bishop of the first learning and piety of that age. In ans\ver to these letters A TIgustine \vrote his two treatises De PrccilesNnat1.'one Sanct01'um and De Dono Pe?'seve?'antiæ. He acknowledges, as in his book of Retractation , that he now sa\v more clearly than fornlerly; 8 yet he says that he had inlplicitly taught the sanle doctrines before, but heresies bring out more clearly the truth. 9 He also says the earlier fathers did not ,vrite much on tbese doctrines because they had no Pelagians to \vrite against. 10 Still he thinks that he can find support fro1l1 passages in St. Cy- prian, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Anlbrose. Fron1 St. Cyprian 1 De C;;r-reptionc et G1'atia, 16, Tom. x. p. 758. 2 See the correspondence of Augustine with Valentinus.-August. Opp. Tom. II. pp. 79 1 -799. 3 Generally mpposed to be the Bishop of Arles, though the Benedictine editor gives good reasons for thinking it may have been another person of the same name. 4 'Quid opus fuit hujuscemodi dispn- tationis incerto tot minns intelligentium corda turbari Neque enim minus utiliter sine hac definitione, aiunt, tot annis, a tot tractatoribus, tot præcedeJltibus libris et tuis et aliorum, cnm contra alios, turn maxime contra Pelagianos Catholicam fidem fuisse defensam.'-Epist. lIilllr. 8; OJJ]). Tom. x. p. 78].--8ee also D( Dono Pe1.,'W1'. 52, Torn. x. p. 850. D Ibid. 4. 6 Epist. Prosper. 3; Aug-. Gp. Tom. x. p. 779; De Pl'ædcstinctt. 2, p. 79 I. 7 Rpixt. Prosper. 9, p. 873. 8 De Pnf.destin. 7, Tom. x. p. 793. 9 .De ])ono Perse 'er. 53, TOlll. x. p.8S!. lU De Prædestin. 27, p. 808. SEC. 1.J OF PREDESTINATIOX AND ELECTION. 405 he quotes, C 'Ve nlust glory in nothing, as 've have nothing of our own.' 1 And again he refers to St. Cyprian's interpretation of the petition in tbe Lord's Prayer, , Hallowed be Thy Name,' as meaning that we pray that IIis name may be sanctified in us. And this he further explains to signify that we pray that we, who have been sanctified in baptisnl, may persevere in that which we have begun. 2 Hence St. Augustine concludes that Cyprian held the doctrine of perseverance in the .A.ugustinian sense of that doctrine. Fronl Gregory N azianzen he cites an exhortation to confess the doctrine of the Trinity, which concludes with an expression of confident hope that God, who first gave them to believe, \vould also give them to confess the faith. 3 From Ambrose he alleges two passages. In one, St. Ambrose simply argu s that if a rnan says he followed Christ, because it seelned good to himself to do so, he does not deny the will of God, for man's \vill is prepared by God. 4 The other passage is as fol- lows: 'Learn also that He would not be received by those not converted in simplicity of mind. For if He would, He could from indevout have made them devout. Why they received Him not the evangelist has himself related, saying, Because His face 'was as of one going to Je'r1lsalcTJt. For the disciples \vere desiring to be received into Samaria, but those \vhom God sees good He calls, and whom He wills He makes religious.' 5 These are the passages alleged by St. Augustine, in proof that more ancient fathers than hinlself held his view of predestination. With the exception of the last fronl St. Arn brose, it \vill appear to most people that if St. Augustine had not brought weightier argu- ments from Scripture than he did frorn the fathers, he would hardly have succeeded in settling his system so firmly in the minds of his followers. The language of the last passage indeed appears, 1 'In nullo gloriandum, quando nos- trum nihil sit. '-Cypr. Ad. Quirinum, Lib. III. cap. iv.; August. De p'J.ædest. 7, Tom. x. p. 753; De Dono Perse--ær. 3 6 , p. 84 1 ; 48, p. 8--1- 8 . 2 Cyprian, In Dominic. Orat. . Au- gust. De Dono Persevere 4, p. 824. 3 ÔWlTH ')'àp ED oIôa Ó TÒ 7rpWTOJl ôoù Kal TÒ OEÚn:POIl, Kaì ,uáÀLlTTa.-Greg. Nazianz. Oratio 44 in Pentecostcn. , Gregorium addamus et tertium qui et credere in Deum, et quod credimus, confiteri, Dei donum esse testatur. . . . Dabit enim, certus 8lt1n; 'I.ui dedit quod p'1'imum est, dabit et quod sccundU1n est; qui dedit credere, dabit et cOllfiteri.'- Aug. Dc Dono Persevere 49, p. 849. 4 'Quod cum dicit, non negat Deo visum: a Deo enim præparatur voluntas hominum. Ut enim Deus honorificetur a sancto, Dei gratia est.' -Ambros. Com- ment. in Lucam apud August. Ibid. 5 'Simul disce, inquit, quia recipi noluit a non simplici mente conversis. :x am si voluh.:set, ex indevotis devoto}; fecisset. Cur autem non receperint eum, evangelista. ipse commemoravit, dicens, Quia facies ejus erat euntis in Jerusalem. Discipuli autem recipi intra Samariam gestiebant. Sed Dens quos dignatnr vocat, et quem vult religiosum faciet.'- Ambros. Cmnment. in L'llCam, Lib. VII. aplld Augustin. Ibid. 406 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [ART. XVII. at first sight, strongly to resenlble the language of St. Austin. But it is by no means clear that even this passage does not accord with the views of those fathers who held the election of individuals to the Church and to baptismal grace, but believed that any further predestination was from foreseen faith; and it is capable of proof that such 1Nere in fact the views generally held by St. Ambrose. 1 This passage, if fairly interpreted, contains probably no contra- diction of his other statenlents. It is, of course, a question of no srnall interest whether St. Augustine's elders in the faith held the same doctrine ,vith him- self on the predestination of God, or whether he was the first to discover it in Scripture. That so learned a divine could find no stronger passages in any of their writings than those just mentioned, is much like a confession of the difficulty of the proof. His own opinions must have great and deserved weight; but, if they \vere novel, we can hardly accept them as true. rfhe passages already quoted from the earliest fat.hers are all we have to guide us in this .question; for it seelns now an adlllitted fact that from Origen to St. Augustine irrespective individual election to ylorry was unheard of. Soon after the correspondence with the 11assilian Christians, .A.D. 430, St. Augustine died, 'without any equal,' says Hooker, , in the Church of Christ, from that day to this.' Prosper follo\ved in the steps of his great master \vith constancy and success; but he exceeded him in the strength of his predestinarian sentiments; for, whereas Augustine held that the wicked perish from their natural sins, being passed over in God's decree, but not actuaUy predes- tinated to damnation, Prosper seems plainly to have taught the reprobation of the non-elect. 2 He drew up a book of sentences from the writings of St. Augustine,3and with the aid of Celestine and Leo, Bishops of Rome, ,vas successful in opposing the Pelagian heresy. Not long after, \ve read of a priest named Lucidus, who, taking up Augustine'R predestinarianism, cdrried it to lengths to \vhich 1 See this very Huccessfully shown by Faber, Primitive Doct1'ine of Election, Bk. I. ch. viii. p. 168, &c. The following passage shows clearly that he held the views of Clement and Origen concerning God's prevision of faith as the ground of His predestination to glory. In discussing 1\-Iatt. xx. 23, he writes: 'Denique ad Patrem referens addidit : Quibus paratulll est, ut ostenderet Patrem quoque non petitionibus deferre solere, sed meritis, {Iuia Deus personarum acceptor non est. U nde et Apostolus ait, Quos præscivit, et prædestinavit. Non euim ante prædesti- na\'it quam præsciret, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit.' -De Fide ad Gratianllrn, Lib. v. cap. 2, sub fine. J\Ir. Faber has clearly shown that else- where St. Ambrose maintains the doctrine of ecclesiastical election. 2 hpist. ad R'Uffin (,rn, cap. xiv.; Ap- pend. ad Ope .A'u!J'Ustin. Tom. x. p. 168. 3 See Appendix to Vol. x. of St. Au- gnstine's 'V orks, p. 223, seq. SEC. I.] OF PltEDESTINATlüN AND ELECTIO . 407 Augustine had never gone. }-'austus, Bishop of Riez, who himself ,vas inclined to Semi-Pelagianism, succeeded in inducing him to recant. A synod was assem bled at Arles, A.D. 47 5, where the errors of Lucidus were condemned, and his recantation was received. Some of these errors were, 'that God;s foreknowledge depresses l1len to hell,-that those who perished could not have been saved,- that a vessel of dishonour could never become a vessel of honour,- that Christ did not die for all men, nor wills all men to be saved.,l In the year 529 was held the second Council of Orange, at which Cæsarius of Arles presided. Its canons and decrees bear the signatures of fourteen bishops, and were approved by Boniface 11., Bishop of Ronle. They are chiefly directed against the errors of the Senli-Pelagians. But to the twenty-five canons on this subject there are appended three declarations of qoctrine. I. That by the grace of baptisn1 all baptized persons can, if they will, be saved. 2. That, if any hold that God has predestinated any to danlnation, they are to be anathenlatized. 3. 'That God begins in us all good by His grace, thereby leading men to faith and baptism, and that after baptism, by the aid of His grace, we can do His will. 2 These propositions of the Council of Orange, coming immediately after canons against Semi - Pelagianisnl, and exaggerated notions of free- '\viII, express as nearly as possible a belief in Ecclesiastical Election (i.e., election to the church and to baptislnal privileges), but reject the peculiar doctrines of St. Austin. Some mention was made of Goteschalc in the history of the Xth Article. 3 He ,vas a Benedictine nlonk of the convent of Orbais in the diocese of Soissons, about A.D. 840. He was a great adnlÌrer of St. Augustine, and revived his views of predestination; though, like Lucidus, he appears to have gone much beyond his Jnaster. If '\ve may believe the account of his doctrines given by IIincmar, he taught that there \vas a double predestination-of the elect to glory, and of the reprobate to death. God, of His free grace, has unchangeably predestinated the elect to life eternal; but the reprobate, who will be condemned_ by their own demerits, He has equally predestinated to eternal death. 4 He taught also that Christ did not die for those who were predestinated to damnation, but only for those '\vho '\vere predestinated to life. 5 Rabanus 1 Cone. Tom. IV. p. 1041. See also Hooker's ,V orks, ed. Keble, Oxford, 1836; Vol. II. Appendix, p. 736, notes. 2 Concil. IV. 1666 : Appendix to Vol. x. of St. Augustine's 'Vorks, p. 157. 3 See above, p. 257. 4 Hincmar, De Prædestil1. cap. 5; Ca.ve, Hist. Lit. Tom. I. p. 528. 5 Hincmar, ibid. c. xxvii. Cave, ibid. Archbishop Ussher wrote a history of the controversy concerning Goteschalc. 408 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [ART. XVII. :.ðIaurus, Arch bishop of Ientz, opposed him with great zeal, and summoned a council at l\fentz, A.D. 848, \vhich condenlned Goteschalc s opinions, and then sent him to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheinls, \vho assembled a synod at Quiercy, which degraded him from tbe priesthood, obliged hinl to burn the tract ,vhich he had delivered to Rabanus l\faurus in justification of his doctrines, and comn1Ítted him to prison, \vhere he lay for twenty-one years, and then died. 1 The discussions bet\veen Thonlists and Scotists, among the schoolmen, have also been referred to under Art. X. 2 The former were followers of Tholllas Aquinas, who hÍ1nself followed St. Augustine. rrhey appear to have held irrespective predestination to life; but to have admitted neither reprobation, partial redemp- tion, nor final perseverance, in the sense in which the two former ,vere held bv Lucid us and Goteschalc. 3 01 'Ve sa\v, under Article X., how strongly Luther, in his earlier \vritings, spoke of the slaverr of the human will, and the necessity under \vhich it ,vas constrained. 4 In the first edition of the Loci Theologici, J\lelancthon held language of the sam kind. But in the second edition these expressions were all withdrawn; and, as we saw in the last Article, Luther, later in life, condenlned what are called Calvinistic views of election. Archbishop Laurence has sho\vn, by abundant and incontrovertible evidence, that after the Diet of Augsburg, .A.D. 1530, when the famous Lutheran Confes- sion was presented to the Emperor, Luther and J\felancthon entirely abandoned the high vie\vs of absolute predestination, \vhich they had at first adopted. Luther continually exhorted his followers to abstain fronl all such speculations, and to believe that, because they were baptized Christians, they \vere God's elect, and to rest in the general pronlises of God. 5 Luther expressly approved 6 of the later 1 See Cave as above; and J\Iosheim, Cent. IX. PaI:t II. chap. iii. 2 See above, p. 258. See also X eander, O. H. VoL VIII. p. 171. 3 Archbishop Laurence, in the learned notes to his Bwnpton Lectw'es, seems to contend that none of the schoolmen be- I lieved in predestination, in the ab:;;olute and irrespective sense in which St. Au- gustine held it. But it seems to me, that the very passages which he quotes from Aquinas prcn-e that he did hold Augus- tine'sview of predestination to life, though he clearly denied reprobation, anrl the certainty of individual,perseverance-e.g., 'Deus habet præscientiam etimn de pec- catis; !';ed prædestinatio est de bonis salutaribus.'-A.quin. Expo it. in Rom. cap. viii.; Laurence, p. 353. See also the passages immediately following, and _ the I quotations from Aquinas ape Laurence, p. 152; where his view of perseverance seems exactly the same as that which we have seen above to have been St. Augus- tine's. 4 Above, p. 259. 5 See Laurence, Bampton Lectures, note 9 to Serm. VII. pp. 355, scq. See especially Lutheri Opera, Vol. VI. p. 355 ; Laurence, pp. 35 6 , 357. 6 Preface to v'" 01. I. of his 'Vorks, 'Vittenb. 1545; Laurence, p. 250. SEC. 1.] OF PRE DES TIS ATIOX AXD ELECTIO:K. 409 edition of Ielancthon's Loci Thcolo[Jici, put forth A.D. 1535, in w'hich his former views of predestination \vere retracted.! He him- self speaks of the predestinarian controversies set on foot in his own time as the work of the devil. 2 1\Ielancthon too, in the strongest terms, condemned what he called the Stoical and :ßIanichean rage, and urged all people to fly from such monstrous opinions. 3 The doctrine both of Luther and 1\Ielancthon, after their first change of opinion, appears to have been very nearly that which we have reason to conclude 'was the doctrine of the earliest fathers. They clearly taught that Christ died for all men, and that God willed all to be saved. They held that aU persons brought to baptism and to the Church were to be esteemed the elect people of God, having been led to baptism by the gracious purpose of God. They taught, too, that God.s purposes were to be gene1Yllly con- iderec1, and His pron1Ïses gcnc1'ally interpreted-i.e., as implying His general designs concerning Christians and the human race, and as concerning classes of persons, according to their respective characters. 4 uinglius was an absolute predestinarian, ascribing all things to the purpose and decrees of God; but he materially differed ironl the Calvinist divines who follow'ed him, in holding that God's mercies in Christ, though given irrespectively and from absolute predestination, were bestowed not only on Christians, but on infants who die without actual sin, and on heathens, who' had grace to live a virtuous life, though ignorant of the Redeemer.' 5 In the Council of Trent, ,,-hen the question of predestination ,vas discussed, no fault was found with the Lutheran statements on this head; but several points were found for discussion in the 1 See Laurence, p. 249; Serm. II. note 16; SerIno VII. note 7. Opp. Tom. v. p. 197. See under Histon' of Article X VI. 3 SU ee his language largely quoted, Laurence, pp. 159, 162, 16 3, 24 1 , 359, 366, 367, 370. Some of the ame pas- :;ages may be seen ill Faber, Prim.itirc Doctrine of Election, pp. 35 0 , 35 1 , 352. 4 I uther's sentiments on universal g-race are shown by Archbishop Laurence, pp. 160, 359. On his and l\lelancthon's belief in baptismal election see p. 157- e.g., 'Quicquid hic factum est, id mnne propter nos factum, qui in illum credimus, et in numen ejus baptizati, et ad salutem destinati, atqueelectisumus.' -Lllth. Opp. Tom. YII. p. 355; Laurence, p. 157. , De effectu electionis teneamus hane cnnsolationem; Deum, volelltem non pe- rire totumgenus humanum, semper prop- ter Filium per misericordiam vocare, trahere et colligere Ecclesiarrl." et recipere assentientes, atque ita velle semper ali quam esse ecclesiam, quam adju\"at et salvat.' -:àIelancth. Lac. Theolog. De P1'æ- dest.; Laurence, p. 357. See other pas- sabes there to the same effect. See also Faber, PrÏ1n. Doct. of Election, p. 374, note; who brings numerous passages from l\lelancthon to prove that he held election to bapti mal grace. :; '.Kihil rest at, quo minus inter gentes quoque Deus sibi deligat, qui observent et post fata illi jungantur; libera est enim electio ejus. '-Zuing. Opel'. TOlll. II. p. 371 ; Faber, Prim.. Doct. of Elect-ion, p. 373 ; Laurence, Se1.1Jl. Y. notes J, 2, pp. 259-3 02 . 410 OF PREDESTI ATION AND ELECTION. [ART. XVII. writings of the Zuinglians. :Jlany of the Tridentine divines took vie\vs of predestination similar to those of St. Augustine, though these were strongly opposed by the Franciscans. Catarinus pro- pounded an opinion ill uch like that afterwards held by Baxter, that of Christians, some ,vere immutably elected to glory, others were so left that they rnight or n1Ïght not be saved. All agreed . to condemn the doctrine commonly called Final Perseverance. 1 Calvin, with the love of systenl and logical precision which \vas so characteristic of LÍIll, rejected every appearance of com- promise, and every attempt to soften down the severity of the high predestinarian scheme. Advancing, therefore, far beyond the principles of his great master, St. Augustine, he not only taught, that an the elect are saved by immutable decree, but that the reprobate are damned by a like irreversible sentence, a sentence determined concerning tbelTI before the foundation of the ,vorld, and utterly irrespective of the foreknowledge of God. 2 Nay! God's forekno\vledge of their reprobation and danlnation is the result of His having predestined it; not His predestination the result of His foreknow ledge. 3 The very fall of Adam ,vas ordained, because God saw good that it should be so; though why He saw good it is not for us to say. But no doubt He so determined, partly because thereby the glory of His name would be justly set forth. 4 Those who are thus elect to glory, and those only, are called eifect1Æally-i.e., irresistibly; whereas the non-elect, or reprobate, have only the external cans of the ,vord and the Chl1rch. 5 Those, thus effectually called, are endued ,vith the grace of finaJ perseverance, so that they can never \vholly fall away from grace. 6 These views, ,vith little variation, were adopted by the different bodies of Christians which were reformed on the Calvinistic model. Sufficient account has been given under Article X. of the principal proceedings of the Synod of Dort. The Renlon- strants, who agreed \vith Armillius, and against ,vholn that synod 1 Sarpi, p. 197. 2 'Aliis vita æterna, aliis damnatio æterna præordinata.'-Institut. III. xxi. 5. , Quod ergo Scriptura clare ostendit dici- mus, æterno et immutabili consilio Deum semel constituisse quos olim semel as- sum ere vellet in salutem, quos rursum exitio devovere. Hoc consilium quoad electos in gratuita ejus misericordia fun- datum esse asserimm;;, nullo humanæ òig- nitatis respectu: quos vero damnationi acldicit, his justo quidem et irreprehensi- bili, sed incomprehensibili ips ius judicio, vitæ aditum præcIudi.'-Ibid. III. xxi. 7. 3 Institut. Ill. xxi. 6. 4 'Lapsus enim primus homo, quia Dominus ita expedire censuerat : cur cen- snerit, nos latet. Certum tamen est non aliter censui se, nisi quia videbat nominis sui gloriam inde merito illustrari. '-Lib. III. xxiii. 8. 5 Lib. Ill. xxiv. I, seq. 6 Lib. III. xxiv. 6, 7. SEC. 1.] OF PItEDESTIKATION AKD ELECTIOX. 411 directed its decrees, had adopted that theory concerning God's predestination, \vhich had been current among the fathers from Origen to Augustine. l They taught that God's predestination resulted from his foreknowledge. They ascribed all good in man to the grace of the Spirit of God: but they held that God deter- mined to save eternally those who, He foresaw, would persevere in His grace to the end, and that He destined to damnation those who, He knew, would persevere in their unbelief. These views w.ere rejected and condenlned by the Synod, which distinctly enunciated the five points of Calvinism. 2 The disputes on the subject, which bave prevailed in the Church of ROlne since the Council of Trent, were all sufficiently alluded to under Article X. 3 The doctrine of our own reformers on this deep question, and the meaning of the XVllth Article, have been much debated. The Calvinistic divines of our own cOlnmunion have unhesitatingly claimed the Article as their own; although the earnest desire \vhich they showed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to introduce the far more express language of the Lambeth .A.rticles, shows that they were not fully satisfied \vith the wording of it. On the other hand, the Arminians assert that the seventeenth Article exactly expresses their own views. The Arlninians agree ,vith the Cal- vinists in holding that God, by His secret council, hath pre- destinated some to life eternal, others to eternal deatb. They differ from them in that, whereas the Calvinists attribute this predestination to God's sovereign, irrespective, and, though doubt- less just, yet apparently arbitrary will, the Arminians attribute it to His eternal foreknowledge. N ow the Article says nothing concerning the 1noring cause of predestination; and therefore speaks as much the language of Arminius as of Calvin. The latter clauses of the Article appear specially designed to guard against the dangers of the Calvinistic theory, and therefore the forlner cannot have been intended to propound it. Ioreover the sentiments concerning election, most prevalent in tbe Church before the Reformation, ,vere that God predestinated to life and death, not according to His absolute will, but according as He foresaw future faith or un belief; and there being no ground for 1 Calvin himself owns that Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome held the Arminian view of election.-Institut, III. xxii. 8. 2 See Io!';heim, Cent, XVII. Sect. ii. ch. ii, I I ; Heylin, Hist07'. Quinquartic. Part II. ch. iv. And for the decrees of Dordrecht on Predestination. see Sylloge Confess. p. 4 06 . 3 Above, p. 262. 412 OF PREDESTIX.ATIO AND ELECTIO . [ART. XVII. supposing that the English reforillers had been nlixed up váth any of the predestinarian controversies of Calvin and the Swiss reformers, there is every ground, it is said, for supposing that the Article ought to be taken in the ..Lt\..rn1Ïnian, not in the Calvinistic sense. In \vhat sense the English reforlners really did accept the doctrine of God's election, and in what sense the XVlIth Article is to be interpreted, is truly a question of consjderable difficulty. The language of Cranmer and Ridley, and of our own Liturgy, Articles, and Hon1Ïlies, is remarkably unlike Calvin's concerning effectual calling and final perseverance. 1 It is also clear that the English reformers held, and expressed in our formularies, w'ith great clearness and certainty, the universality of redemption through Christ. 2 So that, in three out of five points of Calvinisnl, Particular Redelllption, Effectual Calling, and Final Perseverance, the English refornlers ,vere at variance with Calvin. Still, no doubt, it is possible that they may have been uu- Calvinistic in all these points, and yet have agreed ,vith St. ..Ltl.ugustine on the general notion and causation of God's predes- tination; for \ve have seen that Augustine's views were lllaterially different from Calvin's. It is pretty certain that Calvin's system had not produced llluch influence at the tÏ1ne the XVllth Article ,vas dra'wn up. It is true, the first edition of his Institutes ,vas ,vritten early in his career; and that contains strong predestinarian statements. But the great discussion on this head at Geneva, and the pub- lication of his book De Prædestinatione, did not take place till A.D. I 5 5 2, the very year in which the Articles were put forth. It has moreover been clearly shown that the earlier Articles of the Church of England ,vere drawn up from Lutheran models, agreeing remarkably with the language of :ßIelancthon and the Confession of Augsburg. 3 Archbishop Laurence has plainly proved that the great.est intimacy and confidence existed between Cranmer and }'íelancthon: that for a series of years during the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. both the king and the 1 Concerning effectual calling see par- ticularly the original Xth Article, quoted p. 26 3; and the whole history of Article X. On Final Perseverance, see Histor}' of Art. XVI. 2 'The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the 'il'hole vorld.'-Art. XXXI. 'God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all nzankind.'- Catechism. 'A full, perfect, and suffi- cient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whoìe world.'-Prayer of Consecration at the Holy Communion. 3 See Laurence's Bampton Lecture-s, 2JassÍ'ìn, and the historical sections to c;;;everal of the foregoing Articles. SEC. I.] OF PHEDESTINATIO:N AXD ELECTIOX. 413 leading refornlers were most desirous of bringing Ielancthon to England, and that nothing but the death of Edward VI. pre- vented the establishnlent of Ielancthon in the chair of divinity at Cambridge, formerly filled by Erasmus and Bucer. 1 All this must have been pending at the very time the X'lIIth ...-\rticle 'vas com- posed. Nay! there is even some reason to think that Cranmer ,vas induced to draw up this Article b}T suggestion of l\Ielancthon, who, when consulted by Cranmer (A.D. 1548) on the COlllpilation of a public confession on this particular question, wrote recom- mending great caution and moderation, adding, that at first the stoical disputations about faith \vere too horrible among the reformers, and injurious to good discipline; and urging, that Cranmer 'should think well concerning any such formula of doctrine.' 2 From such facts it is inferred that the Lutheran, not the Cal- vinist reformers, had weight, and were consulted on the drawing up of this Article; and that, as Lutheran models were adopted for the fornler .Articles, so, although there is no Article in the Confession of Augsburg on predestination, yet the views of that doctrine current anlong the Lutherine dh-ines were more likely to prevail than those an10ng the Calvinists, who had as ret had no influence in Great Britain. The published writings of Cranmer and Ridley have reIn ark- ably little which can lead to an understanding of their own views of God's predestination. We hear that Ridley wrote a 'godly and con1fortable treatise' on 'the matter of God's election:' but it has never yet come to light. In the letter, ,yherein he speaks of having prepared some notes on the subject, he says, 'In these matters I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, almost none otherwise than the very text doth, as it were, lead me by the hand.' 3 Cranmer's wTitings are, even more than Ridley's, free from statenlents on God's predestination. But Archbishop Laurence has brought several passages fron1 Latimer, Hooper, and other contenlporaneous divines of the Church of England, ,vhich show that they held decidedly anti-Calvinistic sentilllents, and ,,,hich 1 See Laurence! Sermon I, note 3, p. 19 8 . 2 'Nimis horridæ fuerunt initio Stoicæ disputationes apud nostros de fato, et disciplinæ nocuerunt. Quare te l'OgO, ut' de tali aliqua formula doctrinæ cogites.' -)Ie}ancth. Epist. Lib. III. Epist. 44; Laurence, p. 226. 3 Letter to Bradford in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cambridae Ridle y 's R . 0 , emal1ZS, Parker Society's edition, p. 3 6 7. 414 OF PHEDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [ART. XVII. prove that even the Calvinism of Bradford was of the most mode- rate kind. 1 If from the writings of the reformers we pass to the formu- 1aries of the Church, the Liturgy, the Oatechism, and the Hon1Ï- lies, we shall find that they appear to vie,v the election of God as the choosing of persons to baptism, the elect as identical with the baptized, or, \vhat is the same thing, with the Church of Christ throughout the world. Thus, in the Oatechism, every baptized child is taught to say, 'God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God.' In the Baptismal Service we pray, that the child 'now to be baptized, may receive the fulness of God's grace, and ever remain in the nurn bel" of His faithful and elect children.' In the daily service ,ve pray, 'Endue 'rhy ministers with righteousness, and make thy chosen people joyful. o Lord save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance.' Where God's inheritance, the Ohurch, is evidently the same as IIis' chosen,' or elect 'people,' 'v horn we pray that He will bless, save, and Inake joyful. In the Bnrial Service we pray God to.' accomplish the nunlber of His elect, and hasten His kingdom, that we, with all those departed,' &c. Where the we appears to be connected with God's elect. In the HOlnily of Falling from God, all Chris- tians are plainly spoken of as the 'chosen' ( i.e., elect) 'vineyard of God,' which yet by falling a,vay may be lost. 'If ,ve, which are the chosen vineyard of God, bring not forth good fruits, that is to say, good works, . . . He will pluck away all defence, and suffer grievous plagues . . . to light upon us. Finally, if these serve not, He will let us lie ,vaste, He will give us over. . .' &c. From all these considerations, it is more probable that an Article drawn up by Cranmer should have expounded the doc- trine of ecclesiastical or baptismal election, than that it should have contained the doctrine of Oalvin or of Arminius. For, both the other documents drawn up by r...imself, and the writings of his great counsellor J\1elancthon, exhibit the clearest evidence of their belief in such ecclesiastical election. Add to which, the early fathers, whose writings Cranmer most diligently searched, are very full of the same mode of explaining the truth. The question still remains, after all this historical probability, Will the wording of the Article bear this meaning? or are \ve absolutely constrained to give another interpretation to it? Per- sons but little acquainted with scholastic disputations and with 1 See Laurence, Sermon VIII. note 8, p. 389-394. SEC. 1.J OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 415 tbe language of controversy, are apt at first sight to think the XVlIth Article obviously Calvinistic, though others, somewhat better read, are aware tbat it will equally suit the doctrine of Arminius; but both might be inclined to suppose that it could not express the opinions of l\Ielancthon and of the majority of the primitive fathers, and what, we have seen reason to conclude, \vere Crannler's own opillions. Let us see whether this is the case. In the first place then, the words of the concluding paragraph in the Article have been shown to bear so remarkable a resem- blance to the language of l\Ielancthon (language particularly objected to by Calvin 1), that it could hardly have been accidental. 'Furthermore,' it runs, , we nlust receive G-od's promises in such wise as they be geneTally set forth in Holy Scripture: and in our doings that will of God is to be followed, which \ve have expressly declared to us in the ,vord of God.' The word generally is in the Latin gene1'alite1", which nleans not for the 'fnost pctrt, but univer- sally or generically-i.e., as concerning classes of persons. No,v l\felancthon ,vrites, 'And if other things 111ay be nicely disputed concerning election, yet it is well for godly men to hold that the prornise is 'l(;nive1'sal. Nor ought we to iudge otherwise coacern- ing the will of God than according to the 1"(1)ealed 'lv01'd, and we ought to know what God hath cOlllnlanded that we may believe,' 2 &c. But in the beginning of the Article we read of 'predestina- tion to life,' and of God's purpose 'to deliver from curse and damnation;' expressions which may seem tied to the notion of election elnbraced by Augustine, Calvin, and Arminius-namely, predestination to life eternal. It is, however, to be noted that it would quite suit the way of thinking comnlon to those \vho held ecclesiastical election, to speak of election to baptism as elec- tion to life, and as delive1"ance fTorn C'llTSe and da'rnnation. For the Church of Christ is that bod) which, having been purchased by the Blood of Christ, is destined to life eternal, and placed in a position of deliverance from the curse of original sin. Ba ptism is for the remission of sin. All baptized infanLJs have been elected therefore to life, and delivered frOln curse and damnation. The election to life eternal indeed is mediate, through election to the Church, not immediate and direct. Every baptized Christian has been chosen 1 See Laurence, p. 180. 2 'Et si alia subtiliter de electione d putari fortasse possunt, tamen prodest pns tenere quod promissio sit universalis. Nee debemus de voluntate Dei aliter judi. care quam j-uxta Verbum revelatum, et scire debemus, quod Deus præceperat, ut credamus. '-Opera, Vol. IV. p. 498; Lau- rence, pp. 17 2 , 3 62 , 363. EE 416 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [ART. XVII. out of the world to be placed in the Church, in order that he may be brought by Christ to everlasting salvation, as a vessel made to honour. He Inay forfeit the blessing afterwards, but it has been freely besto\ved on him. All persons endued with such an excel- lent benefit of God are called according to His purpose by His Spirit. They are freely justified and made sons of God by adop- tion (language specially used in the Catechism of baptized children); they be nlade like the image of the only begotten, Jesus Christ, for the baptized Christian is said to be regenerate after the like- ness of Christ. The next step in his course is to ,valk in good ,vorks; the last to attain, by God's mercy, to everlasting felicity. Such language then, \vhich is the language of the Article, suits the baptismal theory as well as the Calvinistic theory: and it has been contended with great force by Archbishop Laurence and 1\11'. Faber, that no other sense can be properly attached to it. On the whole, ho\vever, it seems ,vorthy of consideration whether the Article was not designedly dra\vn up in guarded and general terlTIS, on purpose to comprehend all persons of tolerably sober views. It is hardly likely that Cranmer and his associates would have been "Tilling to exclude from subscription those who symbolized with the truly admirable St. Augustine, or those who held the theory of prevision, so common among those fathers whose writings Cranmer had so diligently studied. Nor again, can we imagine, that anything ,vould have been put forth markedly offensive to l\1elancthon, whose very thoughts and words seem em- bodied in one portion of this Article, as \vell as in so many of the preceding. Therefore, though Cranmer was strong in condemn- ing those \vho made God the author of sin, by saying that He enforced the will; though he firmly maintained that Christ died to save all men, and ,vonld have all men to be saved; though he and his fello\vs rejected the Calvinistic tenet of final perseverance; they were yet willing to leave thð field fairly open to different views of the Divine predestination, and accordingly 'worded the Article in strictly Scriptural language, only guarding carefully and piously against the dangers which might befall' carnal and curious persons.' After long and serious consideration, I am inclined to think this the true state of the case. I am strongly disposed to believe that Cranmer's own opinions \vere certainly neither Armi- nian nor Calvinistic, nor probably even Augustinian; yet I can hardly think that he would have so ,vorded this Article had he intended to declare very decidedly against anyone of these ex- planations of the doctrine of election. SEC. I.] OF PREDESTINATIO:N A D ELECTION. 417 It seems unnecessary to do more than briefly allude to the painful controversies to which this fruitful subject gave rise in the Church of England since the Reformation. A sufficient account was given, undpr .Article XVI., of the disputes \vhich led to the drawing up of the Lambeth .á.rticles, ,vhich, though accepted by Archbishop 'Vhitgift and a majority of the divines at Lambeth, never had any ecclesiastical authority. The first four of these were designed to express distinctly the Calvinistic doctrines of election and reprobation; though the Bishops softened down a few ()f the expressions in 'Vhitaker's original draught, so as to make them a little less exclusive. 1 The Puritan party at Hampton Court wished that these 'nine assertions orthodoxal' should be added to the XXXIX Articles, and also that some of the expres- sions in the XXXIX Articles, -which sounded 1110st against Cal- vinislll, should be altered or modified; but their \vish was not ()btained. 2 There have ever since continued different views of the doctrine of predestination amongst us, and different interpretations of this XVllth ArticJe. It were indeed n1uch to be ,vished that such differences might cease; but from the days of St. Augustine to this day they have existed in the universal Church; and ,ve can scarcely hope to see them utterly subside in our own portion .of it. 1 The Lam bf'th Articles after revision by the bishops, were as follows :- I. Deus, ab æterno, prædestinavit quosdam ad vitam, quosdam reprobavit ad mortem. 2. Causa movens prædestinationis ad vitam, non est prævisio fidei aut perseve- rantiæ, aut bonorum operum aut ullius rei quæ ins it in personis præde.stinatis, .s.ed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei. 3. Prædestinatorum definitus et certus .e t nnmerus, qui nec augeri nec minui potest. 4. Qui non Runt prædestinati ad sa- Iutem necessario propter peccata sua dam- nabuntur. 5. Vera, viva et justificans Fides, et -Spiritus Dei justificantis non extinguitur, non excidit, non e\'anescit, in electis, aut finaliter aut totaliter. 6. Homo vere fidel is, i.e., fide justifi- .cante prærlitus, certus est, Plerophoria Fidei, de remissione peccatorum suorum, .et salute sempiterna sua per Christum. 7. Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non communicatur, non conceditur universis hominibus, qua servari possint, si volu- .erint. 8. emo potest venire ad Christum, nisi datum ei fuerit, et nisi Pater eum traxerit. Et omnes homine8 non trahUll- tur a Patre, ut venia.nt all Filium. 9. Xon e8t positum in arbitrio aut potestate uniu cujusqUf' hominis salvari.s 'Ve sa w under Article XVI. the altera- tions introduced by the Lambeth Divine into Propositions 5 and 6, thereby ma- terially modifying the sense. The first proposition expre ses a general truth, to which all assent. In the second "Thitaker had' Causa efficien ,' which the bishops altered to ' movens ; , for the mm,'ing cause of man's sahation is not in himself, but in God's mercy through Christ. So, instead of the last words in \Vhitaker's second Proposition 'sed sola, et absoluta, et simplex voluntas Dei,' they put 'seù sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei,' because our sal- vation springs from God's good pleasure and goodness. Yet even so modified (and with such modifications all their oriO"inal force was lost)the Articles did not approve themsel ves to the Queen or the best of our then living divines. 2 Cardwell's Conferences, pp. 17 8 , seq. EE2 418 OF PREDESTINATION A D ELECTIOX. [ART. XVII. SECTION II.-SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I N investigating the Scriptural doctrine of Election it is of the utmost consequence to keep close to Scripture itself, and to keep clear of philosophy. The subject of God's foreknowledge and predestination must be full of difficulty, and our question can only be, "vhat is revealed to us, not \vhat may be abstract truth. The disputes bet\veen the Calvinists and Arminians took, unhappily, a metaphysical, almost more than a Scriptural turn. The Calvinists ,vere unable to believe in the contingency of events certainly foreknown, and in the absolute sovereignty of God, if limited by His knowledge of the actions of subordinate beings. The Arminians, truly contending that an action was not made compulsory because it ,vas foreseen, held it inconsistent with the justice of God to destine some to be saved and others to be lost. Both argued from natural religion, and both gave weighty reasons for their inferences. But both should have seen that there was a limit to all such investigations which no human intelligence could pass; and that those very arguments "which reduced their adver- saries to the greatest difficulties might often, if pursued further, have told against themselves. It is quite certain that, if we carry out our investigations on such subjects to their fullest extent, we must at length reach a point which is impassable, but where we are at least as much in difficulty and darkness as at any previous step in our course. Thus, ,vhy God, who is all holy and merciful, ever permitted sin to exist, seeing He could have prevented it; why, when sin came, not only into the creation, but into this world, He did not wholly, instead of partially, remove its curse and po\ver; \vhy the child derived it from its parent; why the unsinning brute creation is involved in pain and death, the wages of sin; why, ,vhereas one half of the infants which are born die before the age of reason and responsibility, yet God does not cause all to die in infancy who, He foresees, will, if they live, live wickedly-these and like questions, which puzzle us, as to the on1nipotence, the justice, or the goodness of God, and which neither Scripture nor philosophy will ans\ver, ought to teach us, that it is not designed that we should be satisfied on these deep subjects of speculation, concern- ing which Milton has described even angelic beings as lost in inextricable difficulty. SEC. 11.] OF PREDESTI:N"ATION AND ELECTION. 419 There is another line of reasoning, which has been taken ill this controversy, somewhat more bearing on practical questions, and yet leading us beyond the reach of human intelligence. The Calvinist feels deeply that all must be ascribed to the grace of God, and nothing to the goodness of man. Therefore, he reasons, all holiness must come from an absolute decree; for, if Dot, why does one accept grace, another refuse it? If the grace be Dot irresistible, there must be something meritorious in him who receives, compared with him who resists. Both indeed may resist God's grace; but he who resists the least, so as not to quench the Spirit, must be considered as relatively, if not positively, merito- rious. The Arn1Ïnian, on the contrary, admitting that merit is not possible for n1an, yet contends that the belief in an irreversible decree takes away all human responsibility, makes the mind of man a mere machine, and deprives us of all motives for exertion and \vatchfulness. Even these arguments lead us to difficulties, which perhaps we cannot solve. Weare clearly taught to believe that sinful man can deserve no good from God, and derives all he has from Him. We are also taught to feel our own responsibility in the use of the grace given us, and the necessity of exerting ourselves in the strength of that grace. There may be some difficulty in harmonizing the t\VO truths; but \ve have no right to construct a system based upon one of them, and to the exclusion of the other. If we cannot see, as many think they can, that they form parts of one harmonious whole, ,ve must be content to accept them both without trying to reconcile them. N ow the doctrine of Calvin rests on t,vo pren1ises: I. That election infallibly implies salvation. 2. That election is arbitrary. The Arminians admit the :first premiss, which is probably false, and rejects the second, ,vhich is probably true. If ,ve \vonld fairly investigate the question, we must begin by a determination not to be biassed by the use of words, nor to suffer ourselves to be led by a train of inductive reasoning. The former is a mistake, which prevails extensively on almost all religious questions, and is utterly subversive of candonr and truth; the latter is altogether inadmissible on a subject so deep as that under con- sideration. To begin ,vith the Old Testament, a portion of Scripture too much neglected in this controversy, we read much there of God's election; and it is perhaps to be regretted that our authorized translation has used the words, choose, chosen, choice in the Old Testament, and the words elect and election in the New Testament , 420 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [ART. XVII. whereas the Hebre\v and Greek must exactly correspond in both, and the ideas contained under both phrases must be identical. Now who are the persons spoken of in the Old Testament, as God's elect or chosen people? Plainly the seed of Abraham, the children of Israel. Let us then observe, first, the ground of their election; secondly, to what they were elect. It is quite apparent, from innulnerable statements of l\Ioses and the prophets, that the cause or ground of God's election of the people of Israel 'was not, as on the Arminian hypothesis, foreseen faith, but God's good pleasure springing fron1 motives unknown to us. It 'was ' not for their righteousness, for the uprightness of their heart, that they \vent in to possess the land.' The Lord did C not give them the good land to possess for their righteousness: for they \vere a stiff-necked people' (Deut. "Ïx. 5, 6). ' Only the Lord had a delight in their fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after thel11 above all people' (Deut. x. I 5). 'The Lord will not forsake His people for His great name's sake; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people' (I Sam. xii. 22). , I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people. . . I have loved thee \vith an everlasting love; there- fore 'with loving-kindness have I draw'n thee' (Jer. xxxi. I, 3). 'I have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau' (l\tIal. i. 2, 3) ; a passage which, as explained by St. Paul (Rom. ix. I 3), clearly expresses God's purpose to choose the seed of Jacob in preference to that of Esan, irrespectively of the goodness of the one or the other. The Arminian hypothesis, therefore, of foreseen faith is clearly inapplicable to the election spoken of in the books of the Old Testament. The cause and ground of it was plainly God's abso- lute irrespective decree. But then to (what was the election so often mentioned there? W'e have discovered its ground; can we discover the correct idea to be attached to the action itself? It is evident that the \vhole Jewish nation, and none but th y, \vere the objects of God's election. ' 0 children of Israel . . . . you only have I known oÏ all the families of the earth' (Amos iii. I, 2). 'Thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God; the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Him- self, above all people that are upon the face of the earth' (Dent. vii. 6). ' The LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seec1 after them, even you among all people, as it is this day' (Deut. x. I 5). ' The Lord hath avouched thee this day SEC. I1.J OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 421 to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments: and to make thee high above all nations \vhich He hath Inade in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God' (Deut. xxvi. 18, 19). And,' What one nation in the earth is like Thy people, like Israel, whom God went to redeeIl1 for a people to Himself? . . . For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people Israel, to be a people unto Thee for ever: and Thou, LORD, art become their God' (2 Sam. vii. 23, 24). 'Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance' (Psal. xxxiii. 12). 'The LORD hath chosen Jacob unto Himself, and Israel for His peculiar treasure' (Psal. cxxxv. 4). ' Thou, Israel, art :illy servant, .Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of ...<\..braham l\Iy friend. . . I have chosen thee and not cast thee a\vay , (Isai. xli. 8, 9). ' Yet no\v hear, 0 Jacob J\Iy servant; and Israel, \vhom I have chosen' (Isai. xliv. I). 'For Jacob 1\ly servant's sake, and Israel :ßIine elect' (Isai. xlv. 4). 'CoDsiderest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The t\VO families which the LORD hath chosen, He hath even cast thenl off?' (Jer. xxxiii. 24). All these passages tell exactly the saIne tale, and explain to us the nature and object of God's election, as propounded under the Old Testament. Were the Jewish people, \vho are thus constantly called God's elect, elected to an unfailing and infallible salvation of their souls? l\.fost assuredly not. N aJ ' they \vere not elected to infallible possession even of all the temporal blessings of God's people. Victory over their eneulies, entrance into, in the first place, and then quiet possession of, the promised land were made contingent on their obedience to God's will (see Deut. vii., viii. passirn). But that, to which they \vere chosen, 'vas to be God's 'peculiar people '-to be ' a holy people,' consecrated to the ser- vice of God-to have the covenant and the promises, and to be the Church of God. Yet still there was 'set before them life and death, cursing, and blessing;' and they were exhorted to 'choose life:' 'that they might a\vell in the land which the LORD S"ware to their fathers' (Deut. xxx. 19, 20). We see therefore, first, that the cause of God's election \vas arbitrary; secondly, that the election itself was to blessing indeed, but it was the blessing of privilege, not of absolute possession. And even of those chosen to be brought out of Egypt, and to become God's people in the wilderness, by abusing their privileges, all but two perished before they reached the promised land; and those 422 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [ART. XVII. chosen to live in Canaan, as God's Church and people then on earth, were continually provoking God's indignation, and bringing down a curse instead of a blessing upon them. The seed of Abraham then, the children of Israel, were the only elect people of God at that time upon earth; but their election 'was to the privilege of being God's Church, the s u bj ects of His Theocratic kingdom, the recipients of His grace, and the deposi- taries of His truth. This is the 'v hole nature of election, as pro- pounded to us, in the Law and in the Prophets. If there were any further election, and of ,vhat nature it may have been, as far as the Old Testament ,vent, was one of the 'secret things, which belong to the LORD our God.' Sonle people indeed argue that, if one person or body of per- sons is predestined to light and privilege, and another is debarred from thenl, it is one and the same thing as if one ,vas predestined to salvation and another to damnation; for if the one is not cer- tainly saved, the other is certainly lost; and so if election to glory be not taught, reprobation to damnation is. But this is, first of all, an exanlple of that mode of induction which is so objectionable in questions of this sort. And next, it ren1ains to be proved, either that privilege leads of necessity to salvation, or that absence of privilege leads inevitably to damnation. However, it will no doubt be generally conceded that the Jew ,vas placed in a more favour- able state for attaining salvation than the Gentile; and that, as we bave seen, from an arbitrary decree of God. This, it ,vill be said, is as i:qconsistent ,vith our ideas of justice as anything in the system of Calvin or Augustine. Admit this, and you Inay as ,veIl admit all. The question, however, still remains the same; not what men are \villing to admit, but \vhat the Bible reveals. This election to light and privilege is evidently analogous to those cases which we see in God's ordinary Providence; some born rich, others poor; some nursed in ignorance, others in full light; SOllle with pious, others 'with ungodly parents; and now too, some in a Christian, others in a heathen land; some with five talents, others with b"?-t one. Why all this is, we cannot tell; why God is pleased to put some in a position where vice seems all but inevitable, others where goodness seems almost natural, ,ve know not; nor again, as has been said before, why He does not ordain that all ,vho He foresees will be wicked sbould die in infancy. We know and see that such is His pleasure. The secret motives of His 'v ill we are not told, and we cannot fathom. We are left to believe that, though hidden from us, they must be right. vVhat we are taught is, how SEC. II. ] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 423 to avail ourselves of the privileges, whatever they may be, ,vhich we have; to escape the dangers, and profit by the advantages of our position. This is practical, and this is revealed truth. To return to the Old Testament. As ,ve have seen, we there read llluch of election; and it is always election of a certain body of persons, by an arbitrary decree, to the blessings and privileges of being of the Church of God. And we observe another thing, namely, that, whereas none but the Israelites were elected to such privileges then, there were yet many prophecies of a time when other persons, individuals of other nations, should be chosen by God, and made partakers of the same privileges with the J e'vs- the same privileges enhanced and exalted. Nay, the Jews are threatened, as a body, ,vith rejection fronl privilege for their sins; a renlnant only of them being to be retained in the possession of blessing; and with that remnant, a host from other nations to be brought in and associated. vVhen we come to the Nelw Testa/Jnent, we must bear in mind that the Apostles 'were all Jews, but their mission ,vas to proclaim that the Jewish Church had passed a,vay, and to bring in converts to the Christian Church. Especially St. Paul had to found a Church among the Gentiles, and to bring the Gentiles into the fold of Christ. Nothing therefore could be more natural, or more in accordance with the plan of the Apostles, than, as it \vere, to apolo- gize to the Jews, and to explain to the Gentiles the new condition which the Almighty had designed for His Church in the world. It would be most natural that they should enlarge upon the truth, that in God's eternal counsels there were general purposes of mercy for mankind, to be effected by means of bringing persons into Christ's Churcb, and therein by the graces of His Spirit con- forming them to the likeness of His Son: that, though hitherto His mercy in this respect had been confined to the Jews, His further plans having been hid for ages and generations, yet now it was revealed, that the Gentiles should with the Jews be fellow- heirs (see Co1. i. 2 5, 26; Eph. iii. 5, 6); that therefore, whereas heretofore the seed of .LL\.braham had been the only cbosen people of God, yet now the whole Catholic Church, composed of both converted Jews and Gentiles, were His chosen people; and God who, of His good pleasure, for a time only elected the Jews, had, by the same good pleasure, now chosen individuals, both of Jews and Gentiles, to be members of His Church and heirs of the grace of life. In thus reasoning, it is most natural that the Apostles should constantly compare the state of Chri